Preamble

The House met at Eleven, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Exeter Corporation Bill,

Grampian Electricity Supply Bill,

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,

Neath Corporation Bill,

South Staffordshire Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Chester Gas Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Government Business be not interrupted this day at Four or half-past Four of the Clock, and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. ACLAND: May I ask what Orders it is proposed to take to-day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): We must get the first three Orders, and if there be time, we will also take the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 31.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[11.8 a.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Parker, James


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pratt, John William


Armstronq, Henry Bruce
Gretton, Colonel John
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Renwlck, Sir George


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hallwood, Augustine
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Barnston, Major Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Barrand, A. R.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovll)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hills, Major John Waller
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hinds, John
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkins, John W. W.
Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)



Breese, Major Charles E.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Jameson, John Gordon
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George
Sugden, W. H.


Bruton, Sir James
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sutherland, Sir William


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Blrm. W.)
Lorden, John William
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Cowan, D, M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Ciaud


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Macnamara, Rt. Hon, Dr. T. J.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Windsor, viscount


Ednam, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Winterton, Earl


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Wise, Frederick


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Evans, Ernest
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Major Sir s. Hill- (High Peak)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur
Younger, Sir George


Gilbert, James Daniel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYEs.—


Glyn, Major Ralph
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Mc Curdy.


Grant, James Augustus
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wintringham, Margaret


Galbraith, Samuel
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gillis, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Hogge.


Question put, and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Commander Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hannon.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Herbert Lewis; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Sidney Robinson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Amendments to—

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ALLOTMENTS BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalty for damage to allotment fences.)

Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-one of The Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919 (which imposes a penalty on a person causing damage to crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden), shall extend to damage to fences of any such allotment, and accordingly that Sub-section shall have effect as if after the words "any crops growing on" there were inserted the words "or any fence of."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the fulfilment of a promise which I made in Standing Committee, to extend if possible to fences the penalty for damage to allotment crops.

Colonel ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to extend the new Clause so as to take in temporary buildings or buildings put up by the allotment occupier on an allotment? Up and down the country allotment occupiers put up temporary huts or shelters for the storage of tools and seeds, and surely, if it is right and proper to protect the fences round an allotment, it is even more proper to protect the temporary building which the allotment holder has put up. Could the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment with that end in view.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I wish to support that appeal. Many cases of damage to these temporary huts have been brought to my notice. The answer I have always been given is that the existing law is sufficient. If my right hon. Friend would have regard to the statement just made it would be in the interests of allotment holders generally to have the statutory provisions strengthened.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Anyone who has visited allotments must have noticed the care which the holders have shown in putting up some of these huts and the pride they have in them. You cannot say
to them: "You are protected for your fences," and then say later, "You are not protected for your buildings, in spite of the labour you have put into them."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If the House would permit me, I am willing to extend this new Clause, but I have already given a rather wider extension than has been suggested. It has been pointed out that sometimes ground is damaged by people tramping on it, If it were in order, I would withdraw the new Clause in the form in which I have moved it and move it in another form so that it would read as follows:
Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-one of The Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919 (which imposes a penalty on a person causing damage to crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden), shall extend to damage to allotments cultivated as gardens, or any crops or fences or buildings thereon, and accordingly that Sub-section shall have effect as if after the words 'allotment cultivated as a garden' there were inserted the words 'allotments cultivated as gardens, or any crops or fences or buildings thereon.'

Colonel ASHLEY: I would accept that revision.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that a new Clause cannot be moved without notice, and that unless these changes were introduced as Amendments to the Clause on the Paper, I could not put them to the House.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Would I be in order to move them as Amendments to the new Clause?

Sir G. RENWICK: I would suggest that before the word "buildings," the word "temporary" be inserted. It was never intended that permanent buildings should be erected on the allotments. If the word "buildings" stands without the qualifying word "temporary" there will be an inducement to allotment holders to put up permanent buildings.

Mr. THOMAS: Their huts are permanent to them.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I could effect my purpose by moving three Amendments to the new Clause now before the House.

Sir G. RENWICK: I think the word "temporary" ought to be inserted in the Clause. Surely you are not going to have all buildings included.

Sir K. WOOD: I strongly object to the last speaker's suggested limitation. I wish he would get out of his mind the idea that allotments are temporary, and that the buildings on them are temporary. A good many of us hope to see permanent allotments and permanent buildings. As the Clause is drafted it includes both permanent and temporary buildings.

Mr. ACLAND: I think I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest in regard to temporary buildings. The only buildings of which we know, which are not of the ordinary nature, for sheds, tools, etc., are where a considerable piece of land is held by societies, and where they put up in the centre a building which can hardly be called a temporary building, but is a real storehouse for manures and seeds and that sort of thing. Surely there ought to be a penalty for wilfully damaging a building of that kind by breaking glass and so forth. There is the question whether "allotment cultivated as a garden" fits in with the framework of the Bill. We have two definitions in the Bill. One is a watertight definition of an allotment garden, with an area of 40 rods in extent, and another the definition of an allotment as an area of anything up to two acres in extent. The question is whether "allotment cultivated as a garden" will be taken to refer to allotment gardens, which cannot exceed 40 rods, or will cover an allotment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is no doubt that the expression will cover all allotments, but, I will see that that matter is dealt with in another place. It is a question only of drafting.

Sir JAMES BRUTON: On behalf of some 4,000 allotment holders whom I represent in the city of Gloucester, holding some 240 acres between them, I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture for this Clause. I put down an Amendment in Committee dealing with this matter, and the Minister then promised that he would carry out the wishes of those who were anxious to see this provision made, and I have very much pleasure in thanking him for meeting us in this way.

Mr. ROYCE: On the question of the buildings on these allotments, it will be found as a matter of fact that there are some in existence which are of a permanent character.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendments made to new Clause:

Leave out the words "fences of any such allotment" and insert instead thereof the words "allotments cultivated as gardens, or any crops or fences or buildings thereon."

Leave out the words "any crops growing on," and insert, instead thereof the words "allotment cultivated as a garden."

Leave out the words "or any fence of," and insert instead thereof the words "allotments cultivated as gardens or any crops or fences or buildings thereon."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Major HILLS: I wish to reinforce the appeal made from the Benches opposite that there should be a more exact definition in connection with this Clause. I see great danger in the fact that we have three categories of allotments—first, the allotment pure and simple; second, the allotment garden up to 40 rods in extent as defined in the Bill; and now a third, the allotment cultivated as a garden. It is quite certain that any Court construing these provisions will put different interpretations on the three definitions, and it is asking for trouble if we leave the Bill in its present indeterminate state in this respect.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already mentioned this matter in reply to a previous Question put to me, and have promised that it shall be dealt with.

Clause, as Amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE (Loans to Societies).

(1) In addition to the powers conferred upon them by any other enactment the Public Works Loan Commissioners may out of funds at their disposal advance on loan to societies on a co-operative basis having for their object or one of their objects the provision of profitable working of allotments which are entitled to any land for an estate in fee simple, or for any term of years absolute whereof not less than fifty years shall for the time being remain unexpired, and any such societies may borrow from the Public Works Loan
Commissioners such money as may be required for the purpose of such provision or profitable working of allotments, whether in relation to the purpose of requisites, the sale of produce, credit, banking, insurance, or otherwise.

(2) Such loans shall be made in manner provided by The Public Works Loan Act, 1875, subject to the following provisions:

(a) Any such advance may be made whether the society receiving the same has or has not power to borrow, on mortgage or otherwise, independently of this Act;
(b) The period for the repayment of the sums advanced shall not exceed eighty years;
(c) No money shall be advanced on mortgage of any land solely, unless the estate therein proposed to be mortgaged shall be either an estate in fee simple or an estate for a term of years absolute whereof not less than fifty years shall be unexpired at the date of the advance;
(d) The money advanced on the security of a mortgage of any land solely shall not exceed one moiety of the value, to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of the estate or interest in such land proposed to be mortgaged.

(3) For the purpose of provision or profitable working of allotments every such society as aforesaid is hereby authorised to purchase, take, and hold land, and if not already a body corporate shall, for the purpose of holding such land under this Act and of suing and being sued in respect thereof, be nevertheless deemed a body corporate with perpetual succession.—[Mr. Acland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is, briefly, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance funds at their disposal on loan to societies formed on a co-operative basis to assist these societies to buy their allotments. The main point about allotments is that nothing short of real security of tenure is of any permanent value. I acknowledge that the Minister has done much and is trying to do more, but the only thing which gives real security is ownership and it is of enormous benefit when the allotment holder really owns a certain amount of land, which cannot be taken away from him. We know that at present the powers of the State are very limited and the difficulty is to combine the desire which we all feel, that the allotment holders should be assisted to
purchase their land with the known restrictions which are put upon the advancing of money. The principle of enabling the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money for this purpose was strongly urged in the report of the Allotments Committee which everybody wishes to carry out if they can, but at present, when the matter is brought to the notice of the Minister, he says what is quite true and what we must accept as true, namely that the Treasury has not got the money. For the purposes of this Debate it might be said that if the Coalition Government remains in office, that uncomfortable position should speedily be removed and the country restored to a position of greater solvency.
The point I wish to snake, however, is this, although the allotment holders—and in this matter I speak for both the organisations in the country—are perfectly willing to accept the fact that the Public Works Loan Commissioners cannot possibly now make any loans for the purpose because the Treasury will not allow the money to be advanced, yet unless we put some provision of this sort into the Bill it is very doubtful, even when better days come, whether they will be able to advance the money for this purpose. We want to be in a position of certainty so that we will not require to introduce another Bill enabling this to be done when the country's finances have become easier. The allotment holders all over the country are perfectly willing to accept the present position that no money can be advanced, if they are assured that when money can be advanced, they in common with other people will have a chance of getting some of it. I know of many instances where allotment scieties and associations wish to buy land and are willing to pay a quarter of the purchase price, and where the bank is willing to advance another quarter, and where, if a public body were willing to advance on anything like reasonable terms, the other half, or in certain circumstances only a third, the thing would go through. We acknowledge that cannot be done now, but some provision should be inserted to enable advances to be made for this purpose when the Treasury embargo is taken off. I think that aspect of the matter is rather a new point. It was not fully brought out in Committee. I have done my best to make it quite clear that the allotment
organisations do not expect anything to be done at present during this stringency, but that they want to take powers against the time when things may be a little easier.

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to support this Clause very strongly indeed. It was originally put down in Committee at the instance of the National Union of Allotment Holders, and it is regarded by allotment holders up and down the country as of the greatest possible importance to them. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in contesting the Clause in Committee, put forward the difficulties with the Treasury, but I desire to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has just said. The other point taken by the Minister was that the Public Works Loan Commissioners were doubtful of their security, but the answer to that is that if they are doubtful of the security they will not advance the money. I do not think the House would anticipate further legislation on this subject, at any rate for some two or three years. Things may get better; adequate security may be supplied, and therefore I beg my right hon. Friend to accept this Clause. It is far better to follow the principle that the allotment holders have put forward, not to ask for subsidies, but that they may be enabled to finance their holdings themselves, and I hope the Clause will therefore be accepted.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I very much regret that I cannot possibly accept this Clause, for the reasons which I gave in Committee. I should very much like to see something of this sort done, but it is a financial matter. I have approached the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Commissioners on the subject, and their answer is that, even if the Clause be inserted in the Bill, there is not the slightest chance of any Money being made available for this purpose. They suggest that the security, in their opinion, in most cases would not be sufficient, and they point out that even in the ease of housing under some of the public utility societies there have been losses. What would be the effect of putting this Clause in here? It would simply raise expectations all over the country that would not be fulfilled, and I think that is the very worst thing we could do. Of course, in two years' time, if financial
conditions have greatly changed, there will be nothing whatever to prevent my hon. Friends bringing in a short Bill of one Clause to enable this to be done, but to put it into the Bill now, when we know the money cannot be made available, would be a great mistake, and, much as I regret it, I must ask the House to reject the Clause.

Mr. THOMAS: The answer we have heard from the Minister is not only unsatisfactory, but it is not fair. My right hon. Friend admits that there may be some virtue in the Clause, but says we can get over the difficulty by bringing in a One-Clause Bill.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Later on.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, later on, but no one knows better than he does that any Member of the House can get up, and say, "I object," and that that is the end of the One-Clause Bill. Obviously his party would do it, and we should also, if the circumstances arose. It is somewhat astonishing to hear the argument that the security would not be satisfactory, because one would assume from that that if this Clause were accepted, the Commissioners would be compelled to loan the money. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not only not true, but absurd. He knows very well that the loaning of money for the existing security is determined by them, and by them alone. They are the sole judges of the situation; they can accept or reject as they like, and to assume that if this Clause were put in the Bill it would compel them to invest money regardless of security, is to suggest something that is contrary to experience and to practice. In regard to the argument that putting the Clause in might raise false expectations, that is not the object. If at the present moment there were plenty of money, and the Commissioners were in a position to advance money for this purpose, I venture to say that Members in all parts of the House would support it, because there is at least general agreement that if there be one class of people who ought to be encouraged it is the allotment holders. There is general agreement that, from a health point of view, they ought to be encouraged. It makes the very best type of citizen, and the pride which these people take in their gardens ought to be
sufficient inducement for us to give them an opportunity of owning their land. It is frankly admitted that there is no money now, but, pessimistic as my right hon. Friend may be, he will not suggest that some day that position may not be improved.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If I may interrupt my right hon. Friend, I did not realise when I was speaking that there was another way of meeting the point, but I am reminded that the Public Works Loans Bill is brought in every year, and that there is nothing to prevent an Amendment to that Bill being brought forward at any time, without the necessity of introducing a separate Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: If there be any substance in that argument, it is that the right hon. Gentleman believes it is a good thing, but that he does not want it in this Bill. There can be no other substance in that additional argument. He says there is another way by which we can do this If these ways are open, it is obvious that he thinks it is a good thing, but we are dealing at the moment with an Allotments Bill, and surely, instead of bringing in fresh legislation or Amendments to other Bills, if it be generally recognised that this would be a good thing, and that allotments ought to be encouraged and developed, and even if we frankly admit that there is no money at the moment but that to put in the Clause here will save the necessity of introducing another Bill, then let us put it in now, and then, when circumstances change, effect can be given to it. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is not only not conclusive, but I submit that he ought to reconsider the matter and accept an Amendment in which he believes on principle.

Sir P. MAGNUS: I think we are all agreed that it is very desirable to give every possible facility to these allotment holders. The Clause gives sufficient power to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to accept or refuse applications from allotment holders, and in the second line it says that the Commissioners "may, out of funds at their disposal, advance" money. If they have no money at their disposal, then they will not be able to advance any, and even if they have, it is not obligatory upon them to advance it.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I speak as a Public Works Loan Commissioner, and I wish to say that we think this Clause is inadvisable. It is true that we have no money now, but at any time we may have this money, and it would be holding out false hopes if the Commissioners let it be understood that they would consider this as a proper security for public funds to be advanced by them. We do not think so, and we had better say so at once. Secondly, as regards this security, we feel that if this land be left on our hands eventually, it will be an even worse security for the Commissioners to dispose of than land on which houses have been built, on which we have already advanced money. Our experience is that land having been built on appears to us to offer insuperable difficulties in the future, but in the case of land not built on, we think still more trouble will ensue, and a great deal of public money will unfortunately be irrecoverable. Further, in reference to these allotments, it is our belief that the money, or sufficient money, will be provided, or can be provided, by the local authorities, and it is quite possible that local authorities and these associations might be competing if this Clause were carried. I think that any differences would be unfortunate. Therefore, as one of the Commissioners, I wish to point out that I think it would be better if this Amendment were not pressed.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I say that, largely speaking, the land that will be taken for allotments will not be building but agricultural land. Much of it is valueless, and what gives it value is purely the work put into it by the allotment holders. It will not be a wasting security but an increasing security. I have seen land practically barren taken by people who have put three or four years hard work into it, and at the end they have been compelled to give up the land. We want, by means of this Bill, to enable people, who have put in years of work, to purchase their allotments, and so have security of tenure. Otherwise the amount of compensation given to these people is utterly futile. That will not compensate them in any way for the work they have done, and other people will reap the benefit of their hard work.
I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment.

Mr. SIMM: I hope the Minister of Agriculture will resist this Clause. It contains, I think, two or three very real dangers. We are asked by this Clause to advance public money to private individuals to make a private purchase. If an allotment holder acquires for allotments, land which is potential building land, then he is to earn an increment at somebody else's expense. There is this further objection. There will be for the next few years a very heavy burden on local authorities, and every penny we can raise in any direction ought to go to the relief of those local burdens. There ought to be in this House a very serious objection to granting money to private individuals or groups of private individuals. If the local authority acquired the land, and let it to local occupiers, that could be arguable, but, in the present economic pressure, to advance money to private individuals, would be a very bad practice, and I hope it will not be followed.

Mr. G. BARNES: I wish to add my voice to the many voices raised in appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who is a, Commissioner, is entitled to due weight, but he has only told us that he, as a Commissioner, would not agree to the lending of the money for the purpose intended in this Clause. That may be the opinion of the Commissioners to-day, but not for all time. There may come a time when the Commissioners may have a different opinion from that expressed by my hon. Friend, and surely the House has no right to tie down the Commissioners in the future? After all, as the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) has pointed out, it is only an enabling Clause. The Commissioners may lend money if they think fit, and if money be available. Therefore, if at some future time money be available, and if, in the opinion of the Commissioners at that time, this be a suitable investment, why should be tie the Commissioners down not to grant the money? I think the Minister has scarcely given sufficient consideration to the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend opposite, that, after all, the allotment
holders do not expect any immediate benefit from this if adopted. Surely that statement, coming from such a source, is entitled to a little more consideration than has been given it? I would ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, and, if possible, lend a more favourable ear to the arguments put for ward. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite goes to a division, I shall certainly vote with him, and I shall do so, having in my mind the supreme importance of giving all the aid we possibly can to allotment holders, who are, all over the country, as I know, attaching very great importance to getting as much as possible out of this Bill. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that at some future time you can pass a one-Clause Bill. He knows very well that, unless you have Government support for a Bill in this House, there is not much chance of carrying it. Therefore, now is the time, and not some future time, when, if hon. Members opposite brought forward a one-Clause Bill, it might be objected to by one Member. That is no prospect at all. Why not deal with the matter now in a comprehensive way, and in such a way as to provide for all emergencies?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Simm) said he would have supported this Clause if it had been to give the money to a public authority, but he could not see his way to support it, because it sought to give money to a collection of private in individuals. Personally, that is just the reason why I should support this Amendment. I would very much prefer to support an individualistic effort in a co-operative form than give money to local authorities, which is a form of State Socialism, and never works so well as private individuals co-operating together. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite takes this to a division, I shall certainly support him. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), like Saul amongst the prophets. I heard him, amid the cheers of the Labour Party, frankly giving up Land Nationalisation —throwing over what I had always considered to be one of the planks of the Labour party, and pressing a Tory Minister to advance public money in order that private individuals might be
made landowners. I think, if this Friday afternoon be spent in no other way, it has been most profitably spent by making it perfectly clear that the Labour Party have thrown over land nationalisation, and are out to create a series of Tory freeholders who will support a Unionist Government in the future.

Mr. HAYWARD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude upon this Clause, for one reason, in order to encourage the Labour Party in their new departure. I listened very carefully to the arguments used by the Minister against this new Clause. Really the only argument which he used was that this might raise expectations which could not be satisfied. The question as to the adequacy of the security he did not raise, because he realised that the Clause is permissive. All those who have spoken on behalf of the allotment holders have asked for the Clause, and, surely, if it was likely to raise expectations which could not be satisfied and lead to the disappointment of the allotment holders they would not be pressing for the Clause, I hope the right hon. gentleman will re-consider his attitude in this matter.

Mr. SWAN: As an allotment holder I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will accept this new Clause. I do not know a more appropriate time than the present for the introduction of this Bill, and this Clause into it. To-morrow, at least in the County of Durham, there will be a large number of allotment shows, which are a manifestation of the great advantage of allotments to the individual and to the community. The apprehension of these allotment holders as to the insecurity of their allotments and their tenure is well known. During the period of the war, and since the effect of the allotments on the individual and their families has been very advantageous. During the War the allotment holders performed a very valuable work for the community, producing food, and thus economising resources at a time when economy was really essential. I know, as one who has endeavour to do some work in speeding the idea of allotments and gardening in my own country, that they have been of great advantage to those people both from a moral, material, and intellectual
standpoint. Anything that would militate against this movement would be very unfortunate. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to give even a greater impetus to these desirable acquisitions to the individual and to the State.
We were rather taunted by the hon. and gallant gentleman the Member for Fylde (Colonel Ashley) that we were partially dropping some of our great principles and adopting an individualistic policy instead of a collective policy or a policy of land nationalisation. We know that the State is composed of individuals and we realise that the better the individual the better the State will be when that day comes when the Minister in Charge of this Department is able to put forward a Bill taking over the whole of the land for the people. We will then have the State strengthened by the experience of those who have had the security of their allotments—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the point. He is introducing questions of principle, when the small point is as to whether advances of money are to be allowed to be given to allotment holders by the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

Mr. SWAN: I quite agree, Sir. I was lured away by the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. However, I hope the proposed Clause will be accepted, so that the apprehensions of insecurity on the part of the allotment holders will be taken away. They will then be able to promote a more intensive cultivation and better work will be done.

12 N.

Major STEEL: I should just like to say one word in support of this proposed new Clause. The movement for allotments has been one of the most splendid in this country, and anything we can do that is practicable to help we ought to do. The Public Works Loan Commissioners will not lend the money unless they are satisfied that the security is good. This Clause will not lay any compulsion upon them to lend the money unless they have the funds available, but it does seem to me that this is just one of those movements which the money in the hands of the Commissioners ought to be put into. We have the assurance of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) that allotment holders realise that at the present time money
is tight, and that they cannot look for any at the moment. With that assurance I myself cannot see why the Minister of Agriculture could not accept this new Clause. I hope he will.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would just say one or two words, then I hope we will come to a decision. Listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Major Steel) it might be imagined that the Government and I were not anxious to do everything we could to help allotment holders. This very Bill we are passing shows that we are taking every possible step to do so, and nobody is more anxious to promote the allotment movement than we are. Ever since I have been at the Ministry right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, I think, know that I have taken every administrative act possible to assist allotment holders to remain on the land taken, and generally to promote the movement. I have brought in this Bill largely on my own initiative for the purpose of improving the law as regards allotments. There are, however, some things one can do and some things one cannot do. It is net helpful to press us to do things that really will be calculated, in my opinion, to do more harm than anything else to the movement I quite agree that the time may come and circumstances may be different—having regard to the different position of some of these associations—when it might be possible to allow these loans to be advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to associations. That is impossible now. It is likely to be impossible for a few years to come. The whole question of the character of these associations will have to be

considered before anything takes place. I can assure the House and hon. Members who are interested in this that if we put this new Clause in here and now the only effect will be that practically every association throughout England and Wales, despite what has been said, will ask the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make them a loan. They will say: "Why did Parliament put in this Clause unless they intended the Public Works Loan Commissioners to do this." In cases all over the country pressure will be brought to bear on the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and they will have to turn down requests for loans and disappointment and trouble will arise. Therefore I do put it to the House that I am bound to resist the Amendment, and I appeal to the House, having regard to the fact that we are doing everything possible to assist allotment holders with this Bill, to support me in my resistance.

Mr. ACLAND: With regard to the suggestion which the Minister of Agriculture has just made, I will guarantee, if this Clause be accepted, that to-morrow a letter can go out from my organisation, representing over 1,000 Associations, pointing out that there is no money for this purpose at the present time, and I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), will be ready to do the same with regard to his organisation. Therefore I do not think the difficulty raised by my right hon. Friend will arise.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 101.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[12.8 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Ammon, Charles George
Finney, Samuel
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Foot, Isaac
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Barrand, A. R.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Grundy, T. W.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hayward, Evan
Myers, Thomas


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis


Briant, Frank
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hirst, G. H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bruton, Sir James
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, John


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Edge, Captain Sir William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Waterson, A. E.
Wintringham, Margaret
Mr. Acland and Mr. Kingsley Wood.


White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)



Wignall, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)



NOES.


Adair, Roar-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Nield, Sir Herbert


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Parker, James


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hailwood, Augustine
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Renwick, Sir George


Barnston, Major Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hinds, John
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Scott, A, M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jameson, John Gordon
Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sugden, W. H.




Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cope, Major William
Lister, Sir R. Ashton



Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sutherland, Sir William


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Edge, Captain Sir William
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Ednam, Viscount
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Warner, Sir T, Courtenay T.


Evans, Ernest
Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Windsor, Viscount


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mason, Robert



Forestler-Walker, L.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Winterton, Earl


Forrest, Walter
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wise, Frederick


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Neal, Arthur



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.

The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Acland:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rating of allotment land.)

For the purpose of removing doubts it is hereby declared that the occupier of any land used as allotments shall be assessed to the general district rate in an urban district or to a separate rate levied in respect of special expenses within the meaning of The Public Health Act, 1875, in a rural district, in the proportion of one-fourth part only of the net annual value or rateable value of such land.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this new Clause, it does not appear to me to be in order. It is superfluous. I understand that it is being moved for the purpose of removing doubts. It is not in order to move an amendment which changes the burden of the rates. It seems to me that the Clause must have that effect, or else be superfluous.

Mr. ACLAND: It is, in a sense, superfluous, in this way that it does exactly in the ipsissima verba state what the law is at present. It is interesting, when working in connection with Allotment
Societies, to notice how very little the law with regard to rating is understood, and this Amendment is an exact quotation from a very little known Act—I have only one copy of it and I am continually sending it to these Societies—and it seems to me to be legitimate when dealing with an Allotments Bill that the existing law should be set out clearly with regard to rating. I think the Minister of Agriculture ought to give some consideration to this point for the purpose of removing doubts. For these reasons I thought it was legitimate to endeavour to get this new Clause inserted in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me rather difficult to have the same Clause in two Acts of Parliament at the same time.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I suggest that this new Clause is not really necessary. It merely declares what is the existing law, and, as regards removing doubts, my Department will circulate a leaflet making it perfectly clear how these allotment gardens are to be rated for these purposes.

Mr. SPEAKER: That makes it clear. We cannot insert a Clause which already exists in another Statute.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Travelling facilities for occupiers of allotment gardens.)

Where a council of a borough or urban district as owner or lessee works any tramway or omnibus service the council may charge reduced fares to occupiers of allotment gardens provided by the council when using such service for the purpose of proceeding to or returning from their allotment gardens, subject to such conditions as the council may impose.

Provided that any person who travels at any such reduced fare on any occasion for which it is not available, or who fails to comply with any other condition attached thereto, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.—[Mr. Acland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause enables a council of a borough or urban district to give reduced tramway fares to allotment holders in cases where they own the tramways. The history of it is simple. It was in the Report of the Allotments Committee, it was in the original Government Bill, it ran the gauntlet of all the stages in another place, it came down here and passed the Second Reading stage quite successfully, and then it came up for consideration in Committee upstairs. There, the Minister did not express himself strongly either way, and, if I remember rightly, he did not vote. He, so to speak, abandoned his child on the doorstep of the Committee Room.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I did vote for it.

Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman did vote for the Clause, but it was defeated by a comparatively small majority. Just before a Clause, which is of great importance to allotment holders, and which makes it mandatory that an Allotments Committee shall be set up in urban districts having over a certain population, was passed. There were some Members of the Committee who thought they had gone rather far in that matter, and, when we came to this Clause, they said: "We have made it obligatory that these authorities shall have their Allotment Committees, and we do not see why we should give them the power of granting these reduced fares." It was rather a piece of reaction
that this Clause, after remaining in the Bill so long, was taken out of it. The point is a simple one. Many of these councils of county boroughs are, of course, doing their best to secure allotment land under reasonable conditions for the inhabitants of their areas, but it often happens that a piece of land has to be given up for building or something of that sort, and then it is a matter of difficulty to obtain other land near the centre of the town. The council may do their very best, but may fail, and they may say to the Allotment Association: "We have managed to find land not very highly rented, but it is a good long way out. If we take it, will you do your best to make your members migrate." They do that so that the 800 or 1,000 who are dispossessed in the middle of the town may take up their plots on the outskirts. If they do so and settle on this new land, then, instead of charging 6d, the ordinary return fare, they are content to charge 3d. return fare to persons who can show by producing a ticket that they are members of the Association. It is simply introducing the system of workmen's tickets. It will very much facilitate getting people to continue alloment cultivation and to take up land which otherwise might be too far off for them. It is, of course purely permissive. There is some doubt whether even now municipalities with tramways may not do this without fresh legal powers. At any rate, it was originally in the Bill and was kept in it till a late stage. I hope that it may now be restored. I apologise for what I said as to the indifference of the right hon. Gentleman. He reminds me that he was a keen supporter of the Clause.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press this matter, at any rate to a Division. There is a good deal of difference of opinion among allotment holders as to whether it is right to ask local authorities to make special provision by way of a reduction of fares. It is a very difficult matter of principle, and I personally do not believe in it. I may say that yesterday, when a similar Clause came up in reference to the Scottish Bill, the representatives of the allotment holders did not press the Clause, and it was rejected by 23 votes to 1. I have had an opportunity this morning of discussing it with several representative allotment holders, and they feel that there
is some difficulty in urging the matter forward. They do not want their case to be unduly prejudiced by a demand which they think they cannot sustain on a question of principle, and it is only right that I should inform the House that there is considerable division of opinion among allotment holders generally about pressing this matter.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his statement. I know that there is a good deal of difference of opinion among allotment holders with regard to this Clause. It was recommended by the Departmental Committee and was put into the Bill. Afterwards, we were informed that it was perfectly unnecessary, because without any Clause any local authority owning tramways could give reduced fares. I repeat that statement here, so that it may be generally known. That being so, there is obviously no necessity for putting in the Clause at all. When it came before the Standing Committee, I voted for it, but I left it to the decision of the Committee, and the Committee threw it out, probably rightly. That being so, I certainly do not think that we should reverse the decision. The Clause is unnecessary, and, as to its desirability, there is a division of opinion among allotment holders and authorities, and in the case of the Scottish Bill, it was thrown out by a large majority.

Mr. SPEAKER: Do I understand that, as in the last case, this Clause simply repeats the existing law?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am so informed by the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. ACLAND: If that be so, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake, as he undertook with regard to rating, that in the leaflet he will point the fact out to the local authorities. I think that is a fair question.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I think there are very strong objections to this Clause, whether it be the existing law or not. First, it is an encouragement to local authorities to spend money in a surreptitious way, practically putting something on the rates without people knowing it; and, secondly, the very thing which the Mover suggested as an advantage—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that we need argue this matter any further. I have consulted the Ministry of Transport. There is now no doubt in my mind that this is the existing law, and I cannot countenance repeating ill a new Statute that which is already the law by an old Statute.

Lord R. CECIL: May I respectfully submit that it is entirely a new doctrine that this House cannot declare something to be the law, even if it be already the law. There are many Statutes which are purely declaratory in form, the most celebrated being Fox's Libel Act, and I venture to submit that it would be a most dangerous ruling to say that this House must never enact something by way of declaration which is already the law. It may, of course, be a very useless thing to do, and the House may decline to enact a thing which is already the law, but I submit that it cannot be said that it is out of order to put in a Bill a Clause which is declaratory of the law, if there be any doubt—and it is for the House to judge—on the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt that the question has arisen. I agree there may have been cases of the kind. But, acting on the Noble Lord's theory, we might have a hundred clauses in a Bill which are merely declaratory. I do not know of any case during the last 100 years where a Clause, has simply reenacted what does not need to be re-enacted.

Lord R. CECIL: I am not sure whether the case of Fox's Libel Act comes within the 100 years, but I think I may assert with great confidence there are many instances of clauses declaring the law where the House has been convinced there is reasonable doubt about the matter. Of course it is always open to the Chair, if it be of opinion that an Amendment is put forward for the purpose of delay or frivolously, particularly under the powers now vested in the Chair, to refuse to call such an Amendment. But I would ask you not to lay down your ruling too widely, as it might be quoted later on with serious result.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: With very great submission, I would suggest that no ruling be given on the point. A ruling from the Chair that the Amendment is out of order simply because it repeats what is already the, law would be rather
dangerous. I therefore suggest that, having ascertained from the various authorities of the House that this is an Amendment which has no real substance and which in view of the information which has reached the Chair, ought not to be put, you might exercise your powers in not selecting it for further discussion by the Chamber.

Mr. HAYWARD: May I point out there is this difference between this new Clause and the preceding new Clause upon which a ruling was given from the Chair. In the previous new Clause the Clause itself in terms repeated the words of an existing Act of Parliament. That is not so in this case. This is not a Clause which in terms, as I understand it, does repeat an existing enactment, nor is there in previous Acts a similar Clause to this new Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not giving a ruling which goes any further than the immediate needs of the case. There may be cases where it is advantageous—especially the case of some old Statute—to repeat the law. But I cannot lay down a hard-and-fast rule. Having already called the Clause, I cannot now exercise my power of selection.

Mr. ACLAND: I can withdraw it by leave.

Sir C. WARNER: I hope no circular will be sent out. If it be the law as suggested, let the authorities put it in force if they choose, but do not encourage and urge them to spend money in this way—a way which many allotment holders think would be very undesirable.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Determination, of tenancies of allotment gardens.)

(1) Where land is let on a tenancy for use by the tenant as an allotment garden or is let to any local authority or association for the purpose of being sub-let for such use the tenancy of the land or any part shall not (except as hereinafter provided) be terminable by the landlord by notice to quit or reentry, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, except by—
(c) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in or affecting the contract of tenancy in the case of land let by a corporation or company being the
owners or lessees of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking on account of the land being required by the corporation, or company, for any purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the corporation, or company or has beer appropriated under any statutory provision, or in the case of land let by a local authority (being land which was acquired by the local authority before the passing of this Act under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1921) on account of the land being required by the local authority for the purposes of those Acts; or

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, c), after the word "agriculture" ["not being the use of the land for agriculture"], to insert the words "or sport."
This Clause refers to the power of re-entry on land used for allotment purposes by industrial companies, and the words I suggest would seem to be consequential on the Amendment which we carried in Committee upstairs, and which will be found embodied in Clause 21. We there say that the expression "industrial purposes" shall not include use for agriculture and we added the words "or sport." It seems to me therefore only natural that when we are dealing with these public undertakings of an industrial character we should make it clear also that they may resume their land for any of the public purposes with which they are concerned, but that there should be the slight restriction we have already insisted upon. I really think this is practically consequential on our definition of "industrial purposes," and I move the Amendment accordingly.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. If he looks at an Amendment which I have further down to this Clause, he will see that the power of re-entry is limited even where there is actual emergency and a company can enter after having given three months' notice to the tenant, or if there is the provision in the contract which enables such re-entry. It is quite inconceivable that a company requiring land would put in the contract words enabling them to resume possession for sporting purposes. Certainly the limitations I have imposed with regard to re-entry are sufficient as they stand.

Mr. ACLAND: I think my right hon. Friend has to a large extent met the case, and I therefore will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), to leave out the word "or" ["or in the case of land let by a local authority"], and to insert instead thereof the words
but so that, except in a case of emergency, three months' notice in writing of the intended re-entry shall be given to the tenant; or
(d) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in or affecting the contract of tenancy.
This is a rather important Amendment, which I undertook to consider when the matter was discussed in the Standing Committee. As the Clause now stands, a statutory company, such as a railway company, can enter land at once, without any notice at all, if they require the land for the statutory purposes for which they acquired it in the first instance. It was suggested that that was giving them a power which went altogether too far. The case put forward for it was that an emergency might happen. A railway company might have let land for allotments on the side of an embankment, a landslip might occur, it might be necessary to resume possession at once in order to carry on the necessary service to the public, and, therefore, anything of the nature of six months' or three months' notice is obviously impossible. I think there is a great deal in that, but I do not think that we ought for that reason to give them a general power to resume in any circumstances which are not of the nature of an emergency. Therefore, I propose to limit this part of the Clause which deals with these statutory companies, so that they only have the power of immediate resumption in cases of emergency. I think that that meets the point which was put before me and pressed very strongly in Committee, and I suggest that it is probably the best way of meeting the situation and at the same time making it quite clear that allotments, important as they are, shall not interfere with the actual carrying on of a public service.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question I have to put is, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill." The hon. and gallant Member
for Durham (Major Hills) has handed in an Amendment to be proposed when the word "or" has been left out. I think his opportunity will be on the question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Major HILLS: May. I speak in opposition to this Amendment? I hope the House will pause before it passes a far-reaching Amendment of this sort, of which, I must say, the Minister has not given a full description. I must, at the risk of wearying the House, just explain the position in which all public utility companies are under the Bill, and where they will stand if this Amendment is passed. All these companies—dock companies, water companies, lighting companies or railway companies—are allowed to hold land for the purposes of their business. They are not allowed to hold more land than they reasonably want, but they are allowed to hold land in advance of their requirements, so that they have not got to buy hastily and he compelled to pay an extravagant price. They, therefore, may hold certain lands which are necessary for their undertaking, hut which will not be immediately required. Those lands have for a long time past been let as allotments. In fact, I think I can claim for the railway companies that they were the pioneers of the allotment movement. They have never refused to let the land. The land has been let, and the tenants have cultivated it for years past, and they have only been turned out when the land was required for its statutory purpose of the development of the line.
Paragraph (c) enables these companies to re-enter their land if it is required by the corporation or company for any purpose for which it was acquired or held. That means that they can take back their land at any time when they want it for the business of the company. As far as that goes, the Minister accepts it, but he limits this power of re-entry to a case of emergency. I have looked up the word "emergency" in the dictionaries, but have not got much light on its legal definition. I take it, however, that an emergency imports some crisis, some serious state of affairs as a result of which, if it were not put right, something unpleasant would occur. For instance, the example which the Minister gave is clearly an example of an
emergency. It is an emergency where an embankment is falling down, and where, unless you go in and repair it, the next train may be derailed. That is an emergency, and for that purpose, under the Minister's Amendment, the company would have power to re-enter. There are, however, a great many cases in which business reasons and reasons of public policy would compel a company to re-enter upon land let for allotments, but which could not be described as cases of emergency. I will give two examples of that. Suppose that a railway company is making an extension. All the plans have been settled for some time beforehand, and the extension is started. Then suppose that, half-way through the extension, the engineer of the line finds that he has calculated his land requirements too narrowly, and that if a small three-cornered field could he included in a station or a siding, it would improve the extension. I do not think that that is an emergency. Nothing very dreadful would happen if it were not included, but it would be a very serious business drawback, and might make the extension less valuable than it would have been. I think that in such a case the Courts would say that, although it was urgent, it was not an emergency.
As my second instance I will quote one which actually happened. A dock company received a call from American oil importers, who said to the dock company that, if they would put up tank storage, oil that was then ready for shipment in the States would be sent to them in preference to another port, but that, unless the tank storage could be put up at once, the order would go to some different docks. The oil company had all the plates and other material ready for putting up this tank storage, and they said they must get possession of the land at once in order to start the work. In that case I think they wanted possession in a week, and the work was actually started within that time. You could not call that an emergency. Nothing very terrible would have happened, but the business would have gone elsewhere, and it would have been a very bad thing for that town if, for the sake of one or two allotments, all hat trade had gone to some different port. I submit, therefore, that the word "emergency" is too narrow a word.
Then I have a further objection. As soon as a word of this sort is inserted, the question of the legal interpretation is brought in. Suppose that the word is "emergency" or "urgency," and suppose that the engineer of the line wants an allotment back for an extension and goes in and takes possession, or tries to take possession. The holder may say, "No, I do not admit that this is an emergency or urgency. You are a trespasser; get out! I mean to fight the case in the Courts," and he can do so if he wishes. He is there. You have to get him out by ejectment, and he can fight and take it from Court to Court. I do not think the House wants public enterprises to be held up in this way. I have always been a strong supporter of the allotment movement, and railway companies were the friends of allotment holders long before some of their political friends existed. There was a time when almost the only allotments you saw were the little bits alongside the line and on top of the embankments. All this new extension of the allotment, movement was started by the railway companies. But their primary business is not to provide allotments. They have a great public service to perform and I hope the House will not hamper them, because it would he a grave disaster to them and it would not help the allotment holders. Look at the position. I suppose the engineers of our lines are about the most able business men in the whole kingdom. They look ahead and see which of the lands of the company Neill be required for new developments. They know them and want to get possession of them almost at once. If they have to calculate on three months before they can get possession, are they not bound to say to the company surveyor, "I think you must give notice here and there; I may want that land"? I do not think it is a good thing for anyone. It is not a good thing for the company and it is not a good thing for the allotment holder, and yet if you pass some Clause of this sort you will put the company in that position. I am going to move to leave out "in a case of emergency," and to insert "where the case is, in the opinion of the corporation or company, a case of urgency." I have tried to meet the Minister as far as I can, and I think the House will agree that I have gone a long way. All these statutory companies
have been allowed to hold their land for the purpose of their business, and they have been excluded from all the numerous Acts which involve the acquisition of land and I think that is a very fair compromise. It limits the power of re-entry to a case of urgency—that means ordinary business urgency—and I submit that that is as far as great corporations should be asked to go.

Question, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words
'but so that, except in a case of emergency, three months' notice in writing of the intended re-entry shall be given to the tenant; or
'(d) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in or affecting the contract of tenancy—'
be there inserted in the Bill."

Major HILLS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment., to leave out the words "in a case of emergency" and to insert instead thereof the words "where the case is, in the opinion of the corporation or company, a case of urgency."

Major GLYN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope the House will not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. He complained that the Minister did not tell the complete story in relation to this matter, and I think a similar complaint can be made in reference to him. When the Bill was first introduced into another place, there was no distinction whatever between land owned privately and land held by a railway or dock company. The friends of the railway and dock companies came in mass formation in the other place and the Minister there was compelled to say that he did not see his way successfully to resist a very important distinction so far as allotment holders were concerned, namely, that if land is privately owned three or six months' notice, as the case may be, has to be given, but if it happens to belong to a railway or dock company, no such notice has to be given—as Lord Salisbury said, a very objectionable alteration in principle altogether. My hon. and gallant Friend has put forward two cases, one where there is going to be an extension of a railway company.
Later on he said what far-sighted engineers there were in connection with railway companies. A far-sighted engineer would be able to give three months to the allotment holders and give them adequate time to get rid of their allotments. He then referred to the case of some American oil company who wanted to get hold of some land, and if they got it quickly they could enter into a contract immediately if the allotment holders were removed. If a firm is going to get a big order of this kind, does my hon. and gallant Friend think for a moment that the allotment holders would prove unreasonable? I do not think the dozen or twenty allotment holders would withstand the offer my hon. and gallant Friend might be able to make to them. Now he suggests that it is the company itself which is to determine when an emergency arises. I do not think he can be putting that forward seriously. A railway or dock company ought to be put in exactly the same position—I take the view of Lord Salisbury—as an owner of private land. As a master of fact, these well-advised dock and railway companies can far better look ahead than the owner of private land. For all these reasons I hope the House will support the Minister who, I think, has met the case the railway companies have put forward by saying that in a case of an emergency the land must be immediately given up. I think my hon. and gallant. Friend has got all that he can reasonably require.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am very anxious that this matter should be made perfectly plain. I do not want to do any injustice to railway or other companies. Certainly I do not want to interfere with any public service. The point is simply this. I cannot see why public companies should have the right to dispossess allotment holders without notice, when no one else has, unless an emergency arises, in which case it is necessary to remove the allotment holders in order to carry on the service. In that case, I agree, in the public interest there must be a power of immediate resumption. When the matter came before as before it was argued almost entirely on a case of emergency—a landslip, an embankment tumbling down and the necessity of repairing it at once. The allotment holders could not stand in the way in such a case as that, and the allotment must terminate at once, with compensation.
Other cases put forward do not meet the point. My hon. Friend in Committee put forward the case of the necessity for doing work on a railway siding for such a thing as a Royal show. That is a case in regard to which notice would be given months before or perhaps years before, and there is no reason why a railway company should not have acted like anybody else and have given either six months' notice, without compensation, or three months' notice with compensation.

Major HILLS: I do not want to interrupt, but I want to clear up what is a misunderstanding. I gave that case as an example of what might occur if you went to the Courts. I said that it was not simply a case of three or five months that you might be held up, but that when an action at law was started a wrong-headed allotment holder might hold you up for a year or more. Anyone who has had experience of the law will know that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Then we come back to the Amendment of this Clause. The Clause, if it is amended as I suggest, win provide that in cases of emergency the railway company may resume at once, on paying compensation. That is not a case of any allotment holder being able to hold up the company for a year or even for a day or for an hour. All that would happen would be that the company would say, "This is an emergency" for such a thing as a railway accident or the fall of an embankment, and they could enter upon the allotment and proceed to do their work. It is true that the allotment holder afterwards might go to the court to get an injunction against them.

Major HILLS: indicated dissent.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is the intention of the Amendment, and I am advised that that would be the effect. Therefore I suggest that I have provided for any emergency that may arise. In other respects a railway company or a dock company, or whatever company it might be, should be in the same position as a private owner. If the private owner wants the land urgently he has to come under the provisions of this Bill. If he wants it for building he can give three months' notice and pay compensation. Where is the hardship on the railway company doing that? If a private owner does not want his land urgently he can give six months'
notice without compensation. I cannot accept the word "urgency." I cannot conceive what the word urgency means that is not covered by the word "emergency." If the urgency is due to an emergency it is covered; if it is not due to an emergency then the company ought to have exercised reasonable foresight and have given the proper notice. The proposal I have made meets the case; it is a fair proposal, and I hope the House will adopt it.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. ROYCE: I oppose the Amendment to the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Durham will withdraw his Amendment. We are anxious to get this Bill through as speedily as possible, and the hon. Member can hardly hope to get greater concessions than he has already obtained. He has fought the battle of the companies very strongly, and the Committee gave very considerable latitude to him. I think we have gone far enough. The railway companies cannot be regarded as sacrosanct, and as something entirely different from any other section of the community. I know quite well from my own experience how railway companies in some instances have acted when they have the power to stop public works and other matters, and I am very much opposed to giving them any greater powers. As to the fears that the hon. Members expressed with regard to emergency with regard to the falling of an embankment, I cannot conceive an embankment falling down or even slipping where allotments are concerned. So far as any other slips are concerned, I do not think the average allotment holder will be affected in the slightest degree. I give credit to the railway companies for having been very good in regard to allotments, but I ask the hon. Member not to place the allotment holders on the railways in a worse position than they are at present, and not to make them more subservient to the companies than the other allotment holders are to the ordinary owner.

Sir G. RENWICK: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to include not only statutory companies but other companies, such as shipbuilding companies or dock companies and dry dock companies. Suppose I am the owner of a shipbuilding yard, with a berth 400 ft. long, and I get an offer of a ship 500 ft. long, and I desire to extend my works and to extend the yard. That is a serious position.
The shipbuilding company may lose the orders unless they can extend quickly. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to include other companies as well as the statutory companies. I have mentioned a concrete case that is likely to happen in the future owing to the extension of the length of ships. Many shipbuilders are hampered owing to the length of their berths and are refusing orders which they would have got if they had had quick means of extending their berths.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hold no brief for the railway companies, but I feel that I must support my hon. Friend's Amendment. At least his Amendment deserves to be answered on the grounds on which it is put forward, and neither the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood) nor the Minister has attempted to answer the point. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West, appeals to the authority of Lord Salisbury, and another hon. Member asked why the statutory companies should be put in a different category from private individuals. The hon. Member for Newcastle, Central (Sir G. Renwick), also raises that point. They are in a different position, because they are not allowed to hold land except for certain purposes. Under the law they are only allowed to hold land for certain purposes, and you are here telling them that for the purpose for which they hold the land they must not resume possession. It is said that injunctions can be applied for, but what is the good of applying for an injunction after the thing has happened? An injunction is to restrain an action before it has happened.

Sir K. WOOD: You can get a mandatory injunction.

Lord E. PERCY: It is also said that they can always buy out the allotment holder. That is an extraordinary argument. Is it really a sufficient argument against diminishing property rights to say, "It is true they are diminishing your rights, but you can always buy them out"?

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1, c), after the word "Acts"
["for the purposes of those Acts"] insert the words
and, in the case of other land let by a local authority, after three months' previous notice in writing to the tenant on account of the land being required by the local authority for a purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the local authority, or has been appropriated under any statutory provision."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Compensation on quitting.)

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Section compensation shall be recovenable under this Section only if the tenancy is terminated by the landlord and either—

(a) between the sixth day of April and the twenty-ninth day of September, or
(b) by re-entry at any time under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the last preceding Section.

(8) Except as provided by this Section or by the contract of tenancy, the tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this Section applies shall not be entitled to recover compensation from the landlord at the termination of the tenancy.

(9) This Section shall not apply to any tenancy which is terminated by the effluxion of time before the date of the passing of this Act, or where a notice to quit has been given, re-entry has been made or proceedings for recovery of possession have been commenced before that date.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "and" ["and either"], insert the words "is so terminated."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), to leave out the words "twenty-ninth day of September," and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of November."
We have decided under Clause I that normally notice to quit shall expire on or before the 6th day of April or on or after the 29th day of September. As the Bill now stands, if the notice expires during the winter months between those days no compensation shall be given for the growing crops. That means that if notice is given, say, at Easter to terminate at the end of September and it does so terminate, the allotment holder makes such arrangements as he can with regard to the growing crops at that time. But my right hon. Friend intends to move on this Clause an Amendment which meets the case to a limited degree, by a new Sub-section which says that if the tenancy terminates on the 29th of September or
any date from then on to the 11th of October, there shall in future be a fortnight's grace given to the allotment holder during which he shall have a chance of removing his crops from the ground. I do not think it unreasonable that the tenancy should terminate at Michaelmas, which is a customary and convenient date, and therefore I have not moved to prolong that in Clause 1. But it is one thing to say that compensation should be paid and another thing merely to say that there should bean extension of a fortnight for the purpose of removing the crop. If the present proposal stands, allotment holders in the North of England at any rate will be deprived of any real chance of putting in their main crop of potatoes with any prospect of getting a crop at the ordinary time of year, towards the end of October, when the main crop of potatoes is usually lifted. My right hon. Friend's Amendment gives a chance of removing the crop up to the 13th of October, but no later, and does not give compensation for the value of the crop.
The value of allotment cultivation is not really in the additional food supplies that it provides. It is in the additional interest that it gives to the lives of the allotment holders. No one who has not come into close contact with it knows the interest that the allotment holder feels, not only in getting a large amount of food off his allotment, but in getting a considerable variety of stuff and having a rotation of crops and using his land as long as he can through the winter, and not only having early spring greens like peas and beans, but also going in for winter greens such as leeks and parsnips. But his great stand-by is his main crop of potatoes; it is hard lines on the allotment holder to get notice that his plot should be given up in October and then to feel that he will get no compensation for anything, and that his only chance is to get out of the land such value as is provided by his crops, not later than 13th October. That is not unreasonable. It would cover practically the whole of the potato season.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope that my right, hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. This matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee.

Mr. ACLAND: In Committee that is just what was not done. It was held that as we had made a certain decision with regard to the date in Clause 1, we could not bring up the matter of compensation. Now I am bringing up the questions wholly in regard to compensation.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friend about his recollection of what took place in Committee. I rather think my right hon. Friend was not present at the Committee. In my opinion this matter was discussed in Committee more than once. I made a certain suggestion which I understood was generally supported by the friends of the allotment movement. It was that whatever date was taken, whether it was Michaelmas or the old Michaelmas, which is 11th October, I should give the allotment holders an additional fortnight to gather in their crops. That was accepted as a fair solution of the question. In all cases where old Michaelmas was used it would give them up to 25th October.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. I am a resident in the North of England and I know its climate. In numberless cases potatoes grown there are not fit for lifting until November. I have cultivated a garden for years and have long taken an active interest in this question. We do not object to having notice given to terminate tenancy, but we think we ought to have time to get off the land the crops which we have grown. If crops are lifted too early they are not ready for storing for winter use. That applies especially to the North-East coast.

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will stick to his decision, and resist the Amendment. I do not see why, because in certain districts in the North of England potatoes are rather later than in the rest of England, the rest of England should be put to inconvenience and the whole scheme of the Bill be upset. The North of England should join up with Scotland in this respect, and get the more favourable conditions which, no doubt, Scotland will get. The compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman for the Government is a sensible compromise.

Sir K. WOOD: In Committee, the representatives of the allotment holders,
so far as we could express their views, concluded that the Minister had met them fairly. They would like another week, if the Minister could give it to them, but in fairness to him I must say that what was arranged in Committee was regarded as a compromise which we all accepted.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am very anxious to get this Bill, and to get it as easily and with as little unnecessary discussion as possible. I am willing to substitute three weeks for the fortnight which is to be proposed later in an Amendment in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2, b), after the words "paragraph (c)," insert the words "or paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1)."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (8), to insert a new Sub-section—
(9) if the tenancy of the tenant is terminated on the twenty-ninth day of September or the eleventh day of October, or at any date between those days, either by notice to quit given by the landlord or by the termination of the tenancy of the landlord, the tenant whose tenancy is so terminated shall be entitled at any time within twenty-one days after the termination of the tenancy to remove any crops growing on the land.
This Amendment provides additional time in which the allotment holders can gather in their crops.

Amendment agreed to.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (9), to insert the words
Except in the case of land let by a council where the tenancy has been terminated on account of the laud being required for building, when the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall be substituted for the date of the passing of this Act.
This Bill gives to allotment holders in towns certain penalties, which begin to accrue after the date of the passing of this Bill. The object of the Amendment is to anticipate those benefits in the interests of a certain class of tenants. To some extent its effect is retrospective. I know the objections to retrospective legislation. This Bill will pass within the next few days and then the provisions with regard to compensation will come
into force. I want to substitute the first clay of January for what will probably be something like 31st July or 1st August, in order that certain tenants who have been disturbed and have had their tenancy terminated during the period between 1st January and whatever the date may be, should get the benefit of this Bill. Cases have been reported to me from Newcastle on-Tyne where allotment holders, who hold their allotments from the. Corporation of that city, have had their tenancies terminated because the land is required for building. It would appear that the passage of this Measure will produce this effect—that certain allotment holders during the coming year will have their tenancies terminated, and will get the benefits of this Measure, while other allotment holders, upon whom notices to quit will have been served, before the date of the passing of this Measure, will not receive those benefits. That is a condition of affairs which it would be desirable to avoid.
I have limited the Amendment so that it will only apply to those tenants who hold land from councils. I felt there would be grave objection to an Amendment which would extend this benefit to tenants holding land from private individuals, and tenancies made under the law as it formerly stood and under which landlords would suffer in a way they ought not to suffer, by retrospective action. Therefore the benefits of the Amendment are limited to those tenants in towns who hold land from councils, and it is further limited to those whose tenancies are being terminated because the land is required for building. I am endeavouring to show that the Minister may safely accept the Amendment without landing himself into any position which he does not desire to be in, and therefore I am emphaising, its limitations. The benefits secured under the, Amendment would only apply to a very limited section of tenants and there cannot be great ground for objection. I do not suggest that any anticipatory action has been taken in any of the cities or that tenancies are being terminated before the date of the passing of this Measure in order to prevent the tenants getting compensation, but there is some feeling that that has been done, and the effect of my Amendment will be
to remove that feeling, and to prevent the possibility of any such advantage being taken of the tenant.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is overlooking the fact that in the case of tenancies terminated before this Measure comes into operation there is already compensation. These particular tenants will get compensation under the existing law, which as a matter of fact might be rather more than they would get under this Measure. The only effect of the Amendment will be to worsen their position.

Major BARNES: I am obliged to the Minister for his statement. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I have no more desire than he has to worsen the position of these tenants. There is no doubt, however, that the situation as explained by him is not understood, and that a number of tenants whose tenancies are to be terminated before the Bill becomes an Act, or on whom notices have been served, believe they will be in a worse position than the tenants receiving the benefit of this Measure. On the statement of the Minister I have no desire, to press the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision as to cottage holdings and certain allotments.)

(1) The foregoing provisions of this Act as to determination of tenancies of allotment gardens and compensation to a tenant on quitting the same shall not apply to any parcel of land attached to a cottage.

(2) In the case of any allotment within the meaning of this Section (not being an allotment garden), the tenant shall, on the termination of his tenancy by effluxion of time, or from any other cause, be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to obtain from the landlord compensation for the following matters:

(a) For crops, including fruit, growing upon the land in the ordinary course of cultivation and for labour expended upon and manure applied to the land in anticipation of a future crop; and
(b) For fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, and for drains, outbuildings, pigsties, fowl-houses, or other structural improvements made or erected by and at the expense of the tenant on the and with such consent.

(3) Any sum due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of rent or of any breach of the contract of tenancy under which the land is held, or wilful or negligent damage
committed or permitted by the tenant, shall be taken into account in reduction of the compensation.

(4) The amount of the compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined and recovered in the same manner as compensation is, under this Act, to be determined and recovered in the case of an allotment garden.

(5) The Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall, in the case of an allotment within the meaning of this Section to which those Acts apply, have effect as if the provisions of this Section as to the determination and recovery of compensation were substituted for the provisions of those Acts as to the determination and recovery of compensation, and a claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can he made under this Section, may be made either under those Acts or under this Section, but not under both.

(6) The compensation in respect of an improvement made or begun on an allotment (not being an allotment garden) before the passing of this Act shall be such (if any) as could have been claimed if this Act had not been passed.

(7) In this Section the expression "allotment" means any parcel of land, whether attached to a cottage or not, of not more than two acres in extent, held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a farm or a garden, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do so, not because I really want Clause 3 to be omitted, but in order to raise an important point upon Clause 3. Several times in Committee we were assured that it was not the intention or the purpose of this Bill to worsen the position of the allotment holders, as distinct from the allotment garden holders, with regard to compensation under the Agriculture Act of 1920. I raised the point once or twice, and was told it had already been dealt with by Amendments previously put in, but when one now looks at Clause 3 it is extraordinarily difficult to see how compensation under Section 10 of the Agriculture Act is really secured to the allotment holder. I suppose it must he somewhere in Clause 3, but the only words I can find are the early words, which state that—
A claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can be made under this Section, may be made either under those Acts or under this Section but not under both.
I suggest that no claim for disturbance may be made under this Section. The fact that the words, "under this
Section," are inserted confines it to claims under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause, and I think these words expressly bar claims for compensation for disturbance. It is possible that the matter may be put right by a purely drafting Amendment in another place, as, for example, leaving out the words, "under this Section," in Subsection (5), so that it would read as follows:
A claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can be made, may be made either under those Acts or under this Section.
The matter may be put right in that way, but as I read Sub-section (5) now, there is no certainty that the ordinary claim for disturbance under Section 10 of the Agriculture Act is really secured to the tenant. I am moving this Amendment in order to save time, because if I get an assurance that the matter is really covered, or that it will be covered, I need not move the Amendment which I have later on the Paper, giving the tenant the express right of claiming compensation for disturbance.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am given to understand that Sub-section (5), which was inserted by me in Committee, entirely meets the point put by my right hon. Friend. It leaves the law exactly as it is—that is to say, in the case of an allotment of over 40 poles or under 2 acres, the right to claim compensation for disturbance remains exactly as it was before. I think it is unnecessary to raise the point here, but I promise my right hon. Friend that I will have the matter again carefully considered with the draftsman before the Bill finally comes from another place, although I do not think it will be necessary to make any alteration.

Mr. ACLAND: I do not think anybody reading the Sub-section at the present time, would come to that conclusion, and I think it must be altered, but I will accept my right hon. Friend's assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2, a) leave out the words "in anticipation of a future crop."—(Sir A. Boscawen.)

CLAUSE 5.—(Rights of tenant who has paid compensation to outgoing tenant.)

Where a tenant of an allotment has paid compensation to an outgoing tenant for any
fruit trees or bushes or other improvement he shall have the same rights as to compensation or removal as he would have had under this Act if the fruit trees or bushes had been provided and planted or the improvement had been made by him.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, insert the words "and at his expense."—[Sir A. Boscawen.)

CLAUSE 6.—(Assessment and recovery of compensation.)

(1) The compensation under the foregoing provisions of this Act, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable under the contract of tenancy shall, in default of agreement, be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed in default of agreement by the judge of the County Court having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated, on application in writing being made for the purpose by the landlord or tenant, and if not paid within fourteen days after the amount is agreed or determined, shall be recoverable upon order made by the County Court as money ordered to be paid by a County Court under its ordinary jurisdiction, is recoverable.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "allotment garden," and insert instead thereof the word "land."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Powers of entry on unoccupied land.)

(4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council under this Section and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council shall, unless otherwise agreed in the contract of tenancy, be entitled to recover from the council such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the council.

(7) For the purposes of this Section—
The expression "rateable occupation" means such occupation as would involve liability to payment of the poor rate or any rate leviable in like manner as the poor rate.

Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (4), insert the words
and have the same right to remove his crops as if the tenancy had been so terminated.

At the end of Sub-section (7), insert the words
The expression 'owner' includes the person who, but for the occupation of the council, would be entitled to the possession of the land."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Restriction of obligations of urban authorities to provide allotments.)

The obligation of a council of a borough or urban district under the Allotments Acts to provide allotments shall, if the population thereof is ten thousand or upwards, be limited to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding twenty poles in extent.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to move, to leave out the word "thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words "of such urban district is."
I wish to allow borough councils with a population of less than 10,000 to take advantage of this Clause, and I have an Amendment on the Paper to enable them also to take advantage of Clause 14. There are some councils in the country, very ancient ones, with small populations, and I want them included. There is one particularly that I have in mind which has a great number of allotments and yet does not at present come under the scope of Clauses 13 and 14.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
In Committee upstairs, I will not say an agreement, but a general arrangement was conic to—very much against my will, as a matter of fact—that certain modifications should be made in Clause 14 and that it should be accepted as a reasonable compromise. The boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants were to have their allotment committees with their co-opted members, but the proportions of those members were to be considerably restricted. If I could be assured that there is not going to be any attempt to weaken Clause 14 on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths), I would counsel the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) not to press her Amendment to put in these small boroughs—that is, as I say, unless there is going to be a serious attempt, in spite of the general understanding come to, to weaken Clause 14 by making it optional.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think I can accept the Amendment, because, whether or not these powers should be exercised, they depend really on population. This is to a large extent an urban Bill, and where you have a very small town which is really rural in character, you do not want to have the same
provisions as you would have in an urban council district, which is really of far more urban character, with a large population, than a small borough. Therefore, I think it would be very undesirable to make the distinction as between borough and urban councils; the proper distinction should be a population distinction. There are no fewer than 105 boroughs with under 10,000 inhabitants in this country. On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) I do not know whether or not the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth is going to move his Amendments to make Clause 14 optional, but, as far as the Government are concerned, we intend to stand by the arrangement made in the Standing Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: It is not my intention to move my Amendments, but only to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement, so that we shall be clear as to what was arranged in Committee upstairs. My objection is to having Committees interfering with municipal bodies. This is the thin end of the wedge, and if it be applied generally, we shall have Committees formed, like the Geddes Committee, with the right of coming into this House and telling us what we ought to do, and I think it is a dangerous practice. I should much prefer to see Clause 14 taken out altogether. My own Council of Wandsworth Borough feel very strongly on it, and have asked me to press my Amendments, but I am not doing so, as I have already informed them, because I understand they were met in Committee, and I think it would help matters if the right hon. Gentleman would make a brief statement as to the way in which they were met.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 16.—(Limitation on Expenditure on allotments and rents to he charged.)

(3) Land let by a council under the Allotments Acts for use as an allotment shall be let at the full fair rent for such use and not more than a quarter's rent (except where the yearly rent is twenty shillings or less) shall be required to be paid in advance.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "use" ["rent for such use"], to insert the words
provided that such rents shall not exceed by more than fifteen per cent. the rents or annuities paid by the council on account of the allotments.
This is a very important matter. To some extent we were met in Committee with regard to the amount to be charged to the allotment holders for rent, in that we were given the wording that land let by a Council under the Allotments Acts for allotments should be "let at the full fair rent," instead of some other words which were rather stronger, but it is undoubtedly the practice of many municipalities to take land for a certain rent and to let it to allotment holders at double that rent and, in fact, to make for the municipality out of the allotment holders a very considerable profit on the transaction. That, I think, is a mistake from the general point of view of the social and industrial life of the community. My experience goes to show that the possession of allotments on reasonable terms is of enormous benefit to a community, and avoids a very great deal of discontent and difficulty, especially in times of industrial depression and unemployment. Therefore, provided that the municipalities can reasonably cover all their expenses in administering their allotments, they ought not to make a profit rental out of them. The matter is an old one. It is a matter of controversy, and in order that the question may be raised again, and stand on record, I beg to move the Amendment, and will shorten what I otherwise would have said, and go to a Division.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept this Amendment, and, in view of the alterations made in Committee, I really do not think it is in any way necessary or fair to the local authorities. In this Clause we are dealing with the rental of allotments in a new fashion altogether. As regards the rental to be charged, it is to be the "full fair rent" of what the land is worth as an allotment, and that is cut off entirely from the consideration of what was the cost of the acquisition of the land and the equipment of it. In the first part of the Clause we are dealing merely with the question of what considerations the local authority is to take into account when it proposes an allotment scheme, and we are not dealing with
the rents to be charged at all. That comes in in Sub-section (3), but, as regards the considerations which an allotment authority has to take into account, it has got to make up its mind that when it charges a full fair rent, it will not make a loss, and it is allowed to make certain deductions from its expenditure which are set out in Sub-section (2, a, b, c).

Mr. ACLAND: Sub-section (2) does not refer to rents at all. As my right hon. Friend explained, these things have only to be taken into consideration in (a), (b) and (c) with regard to whether land shall be acquired or not, but once a decision has been come to to acquire it, they will be covered in the rent, if the rent is to be, as it is under the Bill a full fair rent, so that all these charges in the great majority of cases will be covered.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am afraid we cannot go beyond what we have already put in—the cost in relation to acquisition on the analogy of the smallholdings. We have put in expenses incurred in making roads, and sinking fund charges in respect of loans.

Mr. ACLAND: But it has no effect on rent.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: At all events, I do not see my way to go further in that direction. I think our proposals are eminently fair to the allotment holder, and I do not think this proposal would be fair to the allotment authorities.

Sir C. WARNER: Does my right hon. Friend, who has moved this Amendment, really want to increase allotments in the country? If he does, surely this Amendment is the very way to stop them. It seems to me that all through the Debate, he has been trying to discourage allotments, and this Amendment is distinctly trying to discourage local authorities from putting this Bill into force. If the local authority make a profit, which I hope they will—though I do not think they will—then surely it is a great encouragement to them to extend the allotments. If they make a loss, it will prevent them from going in for allotments more largely. Surely if we want to extend allotments, we ought to encourage local authorities, and this Amendment is a restrictive Amendment in every way.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 17.—(Rating of Allotments.)

(2) The foregoing Sub-section shall apply to an association providing land for allotments in like manner as it applies to a council, if at the request of the association the authority by which a rate is levied agrees that it shall so apply.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "association" ("apply to an association"), to insert the words
holding land from a council and providing it for allotments in like manner as it applies to a council and to an association.
This is a little bit complicated. In the first part of Clause 17, a council providing land for allotments is allowed to go to the rating authority and say, "Will you please rate us as if we were the occupiers, without regard to the rent which we charge our tenants?" The Committee has just decided that that rent may continue to be, as it now is, a very heavy rental. At any rate, it is some little relief that the council may say to a rating authority, "We would like to be the body rated on the rent that we pay to the owner, rather than on the rent that is paid to us by our tenants." So far so good. Then, in Subsection (2), the Bill goes on to say that an allotment association may also go to the raring authority and ask to be rated themselves, instead of being rated on the value of the land to the tenants as reflected in the rents they pay. When I moved this in Commmittee, my right hon. Friend making, I think, art acute criticism, said "What is there to make certain that the rating authorities will regard the allotment association as a safe tenant to pay the rates, and what security, therefore, is there that the rates will be paid by them?" Therefore, he was not willing to go as far as I wished to go in Committee when I moved that any association might have the same power as the local authority itself has of going to a rating authority, and asking that the rate should be imposed upon them, and not upon their tenants. To meet his objection, I now narrow it, and only propose to give the power to associations which hold land from a council, and are accepted by the council as being fitting tenants so far as the payment of rent is concerned, and, therefore, as persons of solidity and standing. I ask that in those cases, where associations hold land from a council, that
fact may be taken as a sufficient indication that if they are regarded as sufficiently stable bodies to pay their rent, they will also be regarded as sufficiently stable bodies to pay their rates, and to give, as my Amendment proposes, these particular associations holding land from a council the right to go to a rating authority and to say. "We wish to be rated as a body holding land, rather than on the value which our individual tenants obtain from the land."
The argument in favour of this, of course, is that, although the tenants pay rents for their holdings, more is actually included as a matter of convenience in those rents than actually the value of the occupation of the land. The rents are calculated to include the annual subscription to the allotment society, and are calculated to leave a little surplus to provide a nucleus, say, for the prizes at the allotment show, and also to produce perhaps a few pounds which may be given to the secretary as a honorarium for his services. It is rather hard that in these cases the rates should be assessed on the total rents paid by the tenants, which are often, as I say, not purely rent for the land. I think I have tried to meet the point of my right hon. Friend in regard to the possibility of his feeling it inadvisable to make this concession to associations because of their possible instability by confining it only to associations which are accepted as good tenants so far as their rents are concerned, and, therefore might be expected also to be good tenants so far as their rates are concerned.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Clause enables the council that provides allotments to assess the association instead of assessing the individual, and I think we will all agree that that matter is of some importance. It further provides that where an association provides allotments the association should be rated as a whole, if it desires, instead of rating the individual member. I think it is only right that the rating authority should have discretion to say whether they think the association asking for this arrangement is a body that they can trust and rely upon to pay the rates. Now my right hon. Friend wishes to make an exception from that discretion of the rating authority in cases where the association holds land from a council. Where the
association is one holding land from the council which is the rating authority, obviously the council can do what it likes. Most rating authorities will prefer to deal with one body rather than a number of individuals. I do not consider the

Division No. 260.]
AYES.
[2.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hayward, Evan
Robertson, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Royce, William Stapleton


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Swan, J. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ward, Col. J (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Waterson, A. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, Thomas
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Cape, Thomas
Kiley, James Daniel
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Aneurin, (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wintringham, Margaret


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Finney, Samuel
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Gillis, William
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Newbould.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)





NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Renwick, Sir George


Amery, Rt, Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Hailwood, Augustine
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Atkey, A. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Seddon, J. A.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Jameson, John Gordon
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Borwick, Major G. O.
Jesson, C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Breese, Major Charles E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Brittain, Sir Harry
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stewart, Gershom


Brown, Major D. C.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sugden, W. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Lorden, John William
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Bruton, Sir James
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Taylor, J.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Butcher, Sir John George
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cautley, Henry Strother
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Macquisten, F. A.
Waring, Major Walter


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Magnus, Sir Philip
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Mitchell. Sir William Lane
Whitla, Sir William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Murchison, C. K.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Winterton, Earl


Edgar, Clifford B.
Neal, Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Parker, James



Forrest, Walter
Pease, Rt. Hon, Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Raeburn, Sir William H.

CLAUSE 19.—(Action in default of certain local authorities.)

The powers conferred upon the Ministry of Agriculture by Sub-section (a) of Section twenty-four of the Small Holdings and

matter as one of great importance, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 50: Noes, 118.

Allotments Act, 1908, of acting in default of certain local authorities shall extend to the London County Council, the councils of county boroughs, and to the councils of metropolitan boroughs.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the words
The powers conferred upon the Ministry of Agriculture by Sub-section (a)
and to insert instead thereof the words
If it appears to the Minister, in relation to the London County Council or the council of any county borough or Metropolitan borough, after holding a local inquiry at which the council, or such other persons as the person holding the inquiry, may, in his discretion, think fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard, that the council have failed to satisfy to the extent to which it is reasonably practicable, having regard to the provisions of the Allotments Acts, the demand for allotment gardens to he provided by the council the Minister may, by order, transfer to the Small Holdings Commissioners all or any of the powers of the council relating to the provision of allotment gardens, and the provisions.
This is an Amendment which I accepted in Committee, subject to the possibility that it might have to be redrafted. This has been done, and I move it now in a new form.

Colonel ASHLEY: It appears to me, as the representative of a part of the country where there are many large towns, that this is a most unheard-of and outrageous attack upon the local authorities of this country. What is the use of having a London County Council and great municipalities like Liverpool and Manchester, if the Minister of Agriculture may, if certain things happen which in his opinion ought not to happen, then he may send down an inspector to hold an inquiry at which the local authority will not be allowed even to appear if the inspector thinks that they should not appear. Is it contended that the Corporation of Liverpool and the London County Council are not fit to deal with the question of allotments in their own area? The London County Council represents over 6,000,000 of people, and it is elected on a democratic basis, and are they not to be allowed to function an Act which is one of quite secondary importance. That a department in Whitehall should be allowed to override such bodies is a most extraordinary thing.
Had I not risen on this occasion, this Amendment would have gone through without a word of protest. [HON.] MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that that is the case. On this
matter I think I am voicing the opinion of the majority of the electors when I say that such drastic power ought not to be given to officials at Whitehall. Why should local authorities have their local autonomy taken away from them? Local authorities are getting very tired of this perpetual direction from Whitehall, and of having grave responsibilities put upon them which they do not want. When something is done which does not please the Minister in London, an inspector may be sent clown to tell the local authority what they are to do and not to do, and in this case they cannot even appear at the inquiry if the inspector does not wish them to appear.
What is the object of this Amendment? Surely if the London County Council and other great municipalities are not able to decide what allotments and facilities are needed; and what should be the proper amount of land to be provided for the inhabitants the sooner you do away with local government altogether, and run these affairs entirely from Whitehall, the better. What is the use of having corporations with mayors and aldermen? What is the use of having such a magnificent building as the County Hall on the other side of the river, on which £4,000,000 has been spent; what is the use of having a Lord Mayor if these things are to be settled at Whitehall? This proposal seems to be centralisation run mad. There has been a tendency for some time in what I may call the general government of the country towards decentralisation. We have now Home Rule in two parts of Ireland, and we have demands for the same thing from Wales and Scotland, and the whole tendency is in the direcion of decentralisation. That may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but at any rate it seems to commend itself to the great majority of Members of this House.
Are we now to go in exactly the opposite direction, and month by month and year by year whittle away the authority of our local governing bodies. You cannot have it both ways. One or the other must be wrong, and I am perfectly sure that in this case we shall be absolutely wrong if we do anything to fetter the discretion of these big boroughs and big county authorities. Cannot we
trust such bodies as the London County Council and the Corporations of Manchester, Liverpool, and Bristol to do the right thing by their own people? If we are going to send to these places an inspector to poke his finger into local affairs, and listen to every petty local complaint made out of spite, then I think we shall be doing a great injustice to municipal life in this country which, after all, has served the country very well indeed, and has been on the whole remarkably free from corruption, and which we should do everything in our power to promote.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. and gallant Friend has really discovered a mare's nest. He says that we are introducing in this Clause some new destructive principle.

Major H ILLS: It is old, but it is destructive.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly allow me to proceed? The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we are introducing some destructive principle which has never been applied to local government before. He has entirely misrepresented what it is proposed to do. What are the facts? Ever since 1907, when the Allotments Acts were extended—and the next year they were consolidated—this power of default has been exercised in one case, and in one case only, and that was where a local authority—and we trust them, and trust them rightly in nearly every single case—had entirely failed to provide allotments so far as was practicable. That is all that is provided by this Clause. It is not interfering with the way in which they do it; and it is not whether they do it in the way the Ministry like. If my hon. and gallant Friend will only read the Clause, he will see that the words are
has failed to satisfy to the extent which is reasonably practicable the demand for allotments.
That has been the law with regard to every county council, every urban district council, and every borough council which is not a county borough. But for some unexplained reason—I believe it was an oversight—these powers of default, which are used only in the last instance where there has been a complete failure to carry out the law, were not given in the
case of the London County Council and of the county boroughs. We have therefore this extraordinary anomalous position, that a great county council like that of the West Riding of Yorkshire or the Lancashire County Council can be defaulted, if necessary—they have not been, and I do not think that they are ever likely to be—and a borough in either of those counties, with a much smaller population, like Bolton, cannot be defaulted. I am the very last person to wish to interfere with local government. On the contrary, I recognise that in the matter of allotments, and most other things, these great authorities do their work magnificently, but there must always reside in the central authority the power to act in those cases where a local authority lamentably fails, and there have been some such cases. It is quite inconsistent—and it is an inconsistency which we never could explain—that we should have these powers of default in the ease of the great county councils and not in the case of county boroughs. It is merely to remove this inconsistency that this Clause was moved in Committee, and that I propose to amend it and put into proper phraseology this afternoon. The Clause went through in Committee without hardly any discussion. It was apparent to everybody that if the powers of default existed at all you could not defend this omission. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that I am not introducing any new principle. We do not want, and we do not intend, to interfere, except where there is a complete failure to carry out the intention of Parliament.

Major GRAY: I wish to join in the protest against the principle which is expressed in Clause 19 and extended by this Amendment. I venture to think that my right hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the London County Council was omitted from the earlier Statute by oversight. I suggest that it was deliberately omitted, because it was then recognized—as it ought to be recognised now—that no need existed for giving this power to a Minister of State over and above the power possessed by that great elected authority. I have some little experience, though not much, in connection with this matter, as I was the first chairman—I think the only chairman—of the Allotments and Small Holdings Committee of the London County Council, and it surely
is known to everybody that every inch of land within the London County area which can be used for allotments is already used. During the war we had to go so far as to plough up the public parks in order to find some few plots of land for allotment purposes. I regard this insertion of the London County Council as nothing less than an insult to a popularly-elected body, quite as well capable of managing this small affair as any Minister of State, and I object altogether to the patronising terms of the Clause. There shall be an inquiry, and then the person holding the inquiry may, "if he thinks fit, permit the London County Council" to come and be heard. Was ever language more insulting than that? I should have said that if an inquiry be necessary the London County Council has an inherent right of coming to state their case, and should not merely be "permitted" by some official appointed by the Minister to hold the inquiry.
The London County Council claim that they have done everything that is possible in the direction of providing allotments. No Ministry can do more than has already been done. Earlier statutes regarded it as quite unnecessary to give this power of default, because there can be no default in the London County Council, and I regard it as a great insult to the authority like that of London to put this power in the hands of the Minister. Of course, if the Commissioners act in default, the cost of that action falls upon the rates, and, in effect, the Commissioners become a rating authority over the heads of the elected rating members. That is altogether wrong in principle. It confers upon the Ministry, acting through a Commissioner, the power to impose a rate, and in principle I regard that as bad. We shall never get our best men and women to take part in municipal life if they realise that first by one Act and then by another their decision may be overridden by a Commissioner appointed by a Ministry. The only way of really developing municipal life in this country is to endow the popularly-elected Members with full powers and to trust them to obey the wishes of the electors.
I know very well the trouble we had over the small holdings which is referred to in Clause 19. The London County Council was made the authority for small
holdings in the London county area. We searched within 150 miles of London and scoured the country to try to satisfy the Ministry that we could not establish any small holdings. In the end, when we discovered one and submitted it to them they said that it was no good and could never be made to pay, and we were straightaway absolved from any further action. I should be sorry to estimate the expense to which London was put by all those investigations. The land valuer, the architect, and nearly every department of the outside work of the council were brought into operation to satisfy the whim of the Ministry of Agriculture, who somehow or other seemed to think that somewhere or another within the County of London, covered as it is with houses, we could find space for small holdings. I believe every corner of land which has not been claimed by the builder is already being worked by allotment holders, and, therefore, I protest against the acceptance of this principle which I believe is subversive of the best interests of municipal government. It is most undesirable and should not be attempted by the Minister unless he has a clear and urgent case before him. No such case exists in regard to the County of London, and I think it is very unwise on his part, therefore, to press this argument. I hope the House will not grant the right hon. Gentleman these powers.
I am sorry I cannot put my objections in the very forcible language used by a previous speaker. I subscribe to every word my hon. Friend said, and if Parliamentary forms permitted it, I would try to express my views even more forcibly, so strongly do I feel in connection with this matter. All this only tends to weaken, if not to destroy, the principles and mainsprings of successful municipal government. The country in years to come will have to depend far more than now on successful municipal administration. The enlarged duties imposed on municipal authorities call for the services of the very best men and women the country can produce, and self-respecting men and women will not consent to serve if their decisions, supported by the electorate, are afterwards to be upset by a Commissioner appointed by the Ministry. The whole principle of free, democratic municipal government is here set against the action of bureaucracy. I believe that the people of the country would rather trust
to the free and elected organisation of the municipal authority than place their affairs in the hands of a Minister of State who may appoint a Commissioner endowed with such powers as are expressed in this Amendment. If my right hon. Friend feels that he must adhere to this proposal, which I conceive to be most foolish, I would at any rate ask him to make it clear that the great county councils, whether in London or elsewhere, shall not be subject to the humiliation of having to secure the permission of a Commissioner to exercise their inherent right to appear when an inquiry is to be held.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The arguments used by hon. Members on the other side appear to me to be strangely contradictory. At the moment they are coming forward as the guardians of the liberties of local authorities. A few moments ago they were speaking of the absolute right of the railway companies to deal with allotment holders. I cannot understand how they can argue in the way they do. Reference has been made to large municipal authorities, like Manchester and Liverpool, declining to do their duty towards allotment holders. I do not think for a moment that any large municipal authority would default in this connection. As far as I understand it, the meaning of this Amendment is that in the event of a municipality like Manchester carrying out its duties, as it is doing at the moment, if any municipal authority in the near vicinity declines to do the same thing, then there will be an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture who will have to decide what shall be done in that connection. I believe an Amendment of this kind ought to be included in the Bill, because undoubtedly there are local authorities who are very much afraid of the land hunger which is growing among our people. That land hunger ought to be satisfied, and I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should argue that the local authorities should have absolute home rule in this matter. They never did have home rule. It may be very awkward sometimes for local authorities to submit to the Ministry of Health or to the Ministry of Agriculture, but surely it is not to be said that every municipal authority is to do as it likes without any power of appeal to the State. There may some day be a change in the
Government of this country and then I can imagine there will be on the local authorities landowners and people representing railway companies, who will decline to admit the rights of allotment holders. Then it will be realised that it was well worth while including this provision in this Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that the latter portion of the last speech was very relevant to the matter which we all have at heart. I rather think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Gray) has put his case against the Minister rather unfairly. There is no question of principle involved in this Amendment. If my hon. Friend will refer to Clause 17 he will see that the principle is there laid down. I understood my hon. Friend's speech was really a protest against the existing law and not so much against the suggestion which is being made in this particular Amendment. Does my hon. Friend really mean to suggest that if a local authority is not doing its duty, there should be no right of appeal? I know it is said that this is a matter entirely for the local people. I do not agree with that. If a local authority in an extreme case is not doing its duty in connection with allotments, there certainly ought to be a right of appeal. My hon. Friend referred to the question of local elections. But are allotment holders to wait, it may be a period of three years, for an election before they can secure a remedy for their grievances? The principle has already been adopted by Parliament and it is not a question of any insult being levelled against the London County Council. I was for many years a member of that county council. Surely it is not to be expected that the London County Council is to be treated differently from every other council in the country?

Major GRAY: I have not suggested anything of the sort. All I say is the matter should be left where it is. The London County Council is already exempt.

Sir K. WOOD: There need be no anxiety on the part of the London County Council concerning this Clause. As regards the wording, I think that if my hon. Friend looks at that part of the wording of the original Statute which is covered by the word "insult," he will
find that it follows almost exactly the wording of the previous Statute. Therefore, there has been no gratuitous insult so far as we are concerned to-day. Inasmuch as the London County Council is doing its duty, as I believe it is, and inasmuch as these words follow the principle which has already been adopted by Parliament, my hon. Friend is putting his case very high indeed. I venture to say, however, that where there is a case in which a county council is not doing its duty, it is not fair to say: "Well, you must rely upon the local election; the thing must wait for three years." I venture to say that an. inquiry by a proper body, at which representatives of all parties can be heard, is necessary in an extreme case. I put it no higher, and I think that this Clause is a justifiable Clause to insert in any Act of Parliament.

Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to say anything on the merits, but I think it might shorten the discussion if I point out that we are all rather beating the air. The only effect, if my right hon. Friend's Amendment be negatived, would be that the Clause as unamended would stand. The point has gone by at which it would be possible to move to leave out the Clause, and as in its present form it reads all right, and can be administered all right, we should only get exactly the same thing in another form if the Amendment were withdrawn, unless the Bill were re-committed; and I would not urge the Government to do that even for the purpose of including some of my own Clauses. We are, therefore, discussing a subject which cannot really be decided in any way.

Lord c. PERCY: I think that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has just said is quite possibly true, but I think that this is an occasion on which Members, especially on this side, of the House, should make a serious protest. We have already, on this Amendment, made a protest against the exercise of this kind of power by the Government, and what is the reply of the Minister? It is that this is no new thing, that in this particular case it was started in 1907. But where was the Minister in 1907? Was he distinguished by a whole-hearted support for the Measures of the Government then? We are not, and I think that on the whole
the people of this country are not, at this moment, prepared to say that that tendency which has been manifest during the last 15 years is a tendency to be encouraged, especially because in the last two or three years these powers which were given to the Government before the War, and have been given during the War for the purposes of the War, have been used during the last two or three years not to force local authorities to economise, but to force them into high expenditure.
Local authorities have realised more and more that they have less and less power of control over their own expenditure, and yet this moment, when the Government says it is going to economise, is the moment when the Minister comes down and proposes a new provision to reinforce this principle; and then he says he is only extending a principle which we all agree has been used during the last few years to promote extravagance on the part, of local authorities. I would ask the Minister to refer to his colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and ask him whether he is not of that opinion. We all know that local government during the last two years has been a chaos, where the central Government in Whitehall, exposed to all the influences of pressure of various kinds, has gone to the local authorities and has said, "You must spend here and you must spend there." That is what this Clause is going to do. I am afraid that the effect of this Bill will be rather to discourage private individuals from letting their land for allotments. On the whole, the tendency of this Bill is to throw more and more on the local authorities the duty of providing land for allotments, and unless they spend enough money on them, unless they use their administrative staffs more and more to search for such land, the Minister is going to come down and say, "You are not doing your duty; we must take this over and give it to the Small Holdings Commissioners, and we must impose upon you a burden of expenditure which you are not prepared, as the elected representative of your own people, to assume for yourselves."
The only justification that the Minister brings forward is, "Well, this, after all, is only an extension of an old principle." Are we on this side of the House to be put off by that kind of argument, or are
we going to stand for what, after all, was the old principle of the Tory party, at any rate, namely, the freedom of local government? The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that he was very much surprised that we can get up and at one and the same time advocate the freedom of railway companies and also the freedom of local authorities. I am sorry. I know that the Labour party has not yet realised that the principle of democracy is freedom all round. Local authorities ought to have just as much freedom—no more and no less—as private persons and railway companies and so on. This is just an instance of the way in which we on this side of the House do stand for the freedom of local government, while hon. Gentlemen on the other side are quite unable to do so because of their are-conceptions on various points. There is no party on the municipal authorities that stands up so much as the Labour party does against the appointment of ad hoc authorities; and then they come down to this House and vote in favour of ad hoc authorities, without seeming in the least to understand that they are contradicting themselves. I wish the Minister all joy of the support—and, I think, the only support—that he is going to get for the principle of this Clause. I wish him joy of the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will go into the Lobby against the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Noble Lord who has just sat down was—I am sure, not intentionally—exceedingly unfair to me. There is no question whatever of my coming here and asking the House to insert a new Clause. Far from it. If my Noble Friend had known the facts, he would be aware that this was not in the original Bill. It was brought forward in Committee, and I accepted it because it did remove an anomaly. It is not usual, when a Minister accepts a Clause in Committee, to turn round and move its deletion on Report. As I say, I was not myself the author of this Clause, although, as a matter of fact, it was proposed in the Report of the Departmental Committee. Moreover, I discussed this matter with representatives of the County Councils' Association and of the Associa-
tion of Municipal Corporations and Urban District Councils. They said that they had no particular objection to the Clause, because it would meet an anomaly. It was largely because I realised that no strong objection had been advanced by those who represented the local authorities that I accepted the Clause in the Standing Committee. I put it to the House that it is rather unreasonable, after all, to object to what is really only a drafting Amendment of the Clause, but if it does not meet with the approval of the House, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, which will, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), leave the Clause exactly as it stands. That is all I can do. We have passed the point at which we can move to leave out the Clause. If it be thought that the wording of the Amendment implies anything of the nature of an insult to the county council, I can assure the House that nothing of the kind was intended, and I am willing to withdraw the Amendment and leave the Clause exactly as it was.

Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what difference, if any, there would be between the Clause as he proposes it, and the action which will take place under the existing law?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In practice there will be no difference, It simply means that the actual procedure will not be set out. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to ask why we have been spending the last hour in Debate if this is merely a question of a drafting Amendment which makes no difference. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman move it as a drafting Amendment, in which case there would have been no opposition? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] If he had merely said, "This is a drafting Amendment" we should not have wasted three-quarters of an hour.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is exactly what I said. On the contrary, my hon. Friends behind objected to the fact that I had not explained it and that is why it was necessary to speak again.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am extremely glad to hear that that was the case. Now I understand that, although the right hon. Gentleman still believes the Amendment is a right Amendment which would make the Bill read more intelligently and lead to clearer interpretation by the lawyers and the local authorities, because pressure is brought to bear upon him by the true-blooded Noble Lords of the Tory party, he is content to let the Bill go in an imperfect condition, and leave it to the Law Courts to thrash out, at great expense to the public, what the Bill really means. That may be an enormous boon to the local authorities, but I do not think the local authorities, when they come to work the Bill without understanding it, will be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid the real fact of the matter is that he is undergoing that process of martyrdom which he has undergone very frequently in the past, and which he does not like even though he is getting accustomed to it. As a representative of true-blooded Toryism himself, he has been forced on the Committee to accept this Radical Amendment, and he has to stand up in the House and support a Radical Amendment, of which he does not approve for a moment, in the teeth of the reproaches of his brother Tories—a very sad spectacle indeed. At the same time there is no reason why we on this side of the House, who have got our Amendment carried in Committee, should now, as an act of grace to the right hon. Gentleman, consent to allow him to withdraw it in order that the Bill may go through in an imperfect condition. I do not

SCHEDULE.


ENACTMENTS REPEALED.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
Extent of Repeal.


8 Edw. 7. c. 36.
The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-five.



Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-seven, in Section thirty the proviso in Sub-section (2), and Subsection (3) of Section forty-seven.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "8 Edward 7, c. 3d," to leave out the words "and Subsection (3) of Section forty-seven."

believe it will be of great service to the cause of allotments in any case, but if it is to be of any service, it will be absolutely essential to reserve to the central authority the power to ginger up the few local authorities who do not do their duty in the matter of allotments. I do not think we are ever likely to see much gingering up from the Board of Agriculture as it is represented at present in the House of Commons. But the time will come when we shall have a Board of Agriculture which, like the prophet Habbukuk, will be capable de tout, and in the interests of allotment holders of a future day, when other Members will be sitting on those benches—

Mr. THOMAS: Name the date.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot name the date till I know the date of the General Election. But the day will come when we shall be able to use the machinery of this Act of Parliament in order to get some sort of access to the land for people who want to use it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words
of acting in default of certain local authorities shall extend to the London County Council, the councils of county boroughs, and to the councils of metropolitan boroughs—
and insert instead thereof the words
shall apply as if references to the Commissioners were substituted for references to the county council and with such other adaptations as may be made by the Order."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

In Committee doubt was raised whether this Amendment was necessary. I think it is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ACLAND: I wish to say, not only the formal word, which is sometimes said, but a really genuine word of thanks to the Minister for the way he has conducted the Bill. He has met very few of the points we wanted to have met, but I think he has probably gone as far as he could go, and I hope the Bill will really now be put on the Statute Book. I can best meet his convenience, and that of the House, by not in any way amplifying my remarks, but I assure him it is with a genuine spirit that, although I have been his chief opponent, I thank him for having done his best to meet us.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the House for the way in which they have discussed a somewhat difficult Bill in detail, and I hope it will prove of real good to the allotment holder. Before the Bill is read the Third time, I want to read the following statement:
I have it in Commission from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty having been informed of the purpose of the Allotments Bill gives his consent as far as His Majesty's interests are concerned, and the House may do therein as it may think fit.
I have it also in Commission from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that His Royal Highness having been informed of the purpose of the Bill gives his consent as far as His Royal Highness' interests are concerned, and the House may do therein as they think fit.

PART VI.


(23)





10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 17.
The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920.
The whole Act so far as unexpired.
—

All the other Amendments on the Paper dealing with this subject are consequential on the main Amendment. Therefore, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I allow discussion on the first Amendment covering the whole point.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out "V," and insert instead thereof "VI."

EXPIRING LAWS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Certain. Acts to be made permanent) and 2 (Certain Acts to be repealed) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Certain Acts to be continued temporarily.)

(1) The Acts mentioned in Parts I to V inclusive of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, he continued until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and shall then expire, unless further continued.

(2) The Act mentioned in Part VI of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and shall then expire, unless further continued.

(3) The Acts mentioned in Parts VII and VIII of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and shall then expire, unless further continued.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), in Sub-section (1), to leave out "V" and to insert instead thereof "VI" is governed by the later Amendment. to insert at the end of the Third Schedule:

It will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the subject in the way suggested. The object of this Amendment is to endeavour to insert in the Act the Rent (Restrictions) Act. As the Committee is aware, a Committee has been set up for the purpose of inquiring into the whole circumstances surrounding this Act. Hon. Members will also be aware that in June next the existing Act expires. The difficulty that
we feel, and which I understand the Government are prepared to meet, is this, that in the event of the Committee not reporting between now and June, and in the event of no legislation being introduced in the interval, the Act will automatically expire, with all the consequences that will follow, notwithstanding the fact that a Committee has already been set up. For these reasons we think that provision ought to be made in the Expiring Laws Act. Our object is to ensure that in the event of the Committee not reporting between now and June the Act will not automatically expire. We want to safeguard the position.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): My right hon. Friend has quite fairly put the position. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act comes to an end in June, 1923, but, as the Committee is aware, I have just appointed a Committee to inquire into the question. The first reference is whether the Act is or is not to be continued, and the second reference is, if it is to be continued, what Amendments are required. I shall propose to the Committee when it begins its labours that, on the first point of principle, they might present an Interim Report. I see no reason why on the

FIRST SCHEDULE.


ENACTMENTS MADE PERMANENT.


PART I.


1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far made permanent.
Amending Acts.


(1)





3 & 4 Vict. c. 89.
The Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
—


(2)





4 & 5 Vict. c. 30.
The Ordnance Survey Act, 1841
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
33 & 34 Vict. c. 13.





47 & 48 Vict. c. 43.





52 & 53 Vict. c. 30.


(3)





10 & 11 Vict. c. 98.
The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act, 1847.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
—


(4)





14 & 15 Vict. c. 104.
The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
17 & 18 Vict. c. 116.





22 & 23 Vict. c. 46.





23 & 24 Vict. c. 124.





31 & 32 Vict. c. 114. s. 10.

question whether or not the Act should be prolonged, we should not be able to make an announcement probably during the Autumn Session. If the Act is to be prolonged and to be Amended, we shall then have the next Session in order to introduce the Amendments, and if the Act is to be continued, the Amendments could be made before the Act expires. On this assurance, I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's position is that in the event of no definite Report being submitted before June an Interim Report may be presented, and in the event of neither, the Government will see in the Autumn Session that the Act does not expire without fresh legislation being enacted. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 (Amending enactments) and 5 (Short title and application to Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far made permanent.
Amending Acts.


(5)





17 & 18 Vict. c. 102.
The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
26 & 27 Vict. c. 29. s. 6.





31 & 32 Vict. c. 125.





46 & 47 Vict. c. 51.


(6)





26 & 27 Vict. c. 105.
The Promissory Notes Act, 1863.
The whole Act
45 & 46 Vict c. 61.


(7)





27 & 28 Vict, c. 20.
The Promissory Notes (Ireland) let, 1864.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
—


(8)





28 & 29 Vict, c. 83.
The Locomotives Act, 1865.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
41 & 42 Vict. c. 58.





41 & 42 Vict. c. 77.





(Part II.)





59 & 60 Vict. c. 36.





61 & 62 Vict. c. 29.


(9)


6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 12.


31 & 32 Vict, c. 125.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
42 & 43 Vict. c. 75.





46 & 47 Vict. c. 51.


(10)





32 & 33 Vict, c. 21.
The Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
34 & 35 Vict. c. 61.


(11)





32 & 33 Vict, c. 56.
The Endowed Schools Act, 1869.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
36 & 37 Vict. c. 87.





37 & 38 Vict. c. 87.





52 & 53 Viet. c. 40.


(12)


8 Edw. 7. c. 39


34 & 35 Vict. c. 87.
The Sunday Observation Prosecution Act, 1871.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
—


(13)





43 & 44 Vict, c. 42.
The Employers Liability Act, 1880.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
6 Edw. 7. c. 58 s.14.


(14)





51 & 52 Vict, c. 55.
The Sand Grouse Protection Act. 1888.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
—


(15)





52 & 53 Vict. c. 40.
The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
53 & 54 Vict. c. 60.





2 Edw. 7. c. 42.


(16)





61 & 62 Vict. c. 49.
The Vaccination Act, 1898
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
7 Edw. 7. c. 31.


(17)





3 Edw. 7. c. 36
The Motor Car Act, 1903
The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
9 Edw. 7. c. 37.





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 72.


(18)





5 Edw. 7. c. 18
The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
The whole Act
9 Edw. 7. c. 7.


(19)





5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 48.
The Fishery Harbours Act, 1915.
The whole Act
—

PART II.


(20)





6 & 7 Geo. 5. c.67.
The War Loan Act, 1916.
Sub-section (6) of Section one so far as it relates to the holding of Government securities acquired before the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.
—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. NEAL): I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

(17)






3 Edw. 7 c. 36.
The Motor Car Act, 1903
…
The whole Act so far as unrepealed
9 Edw. 7. c. 37. 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 72.

I told my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), in whose name this Amendment stands on the Paper, that I thought the Amendment might be accepted, and, in his absence, I beg to move it.

3.0 P.M.

Captain W. BENN: We ought to know something about this Amendment before it is made. I am told by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) that this was not recommended by the Committee of which he was chairman. I think we should view any Amendment of the Motor Car Act proposed by the Noble Lord with the most intense suspicion. Therefore, being in ignorance of this matter I ask, on behalf of myself and other hon. Members, that we may have some ample explanation.

Mr. NEAL: I can give the explanation in a sentence. As the Bill stands it proposes to make permanent the Motor Car Act, 1903. It has been suggested that it. would be better to carry that Act over from year to year, and that is the effect of the Amendment, the reason being that the Government is under a promise to introduce amending legislation at an early date and to try to bring motor legislation more into consonance with modern conditions and practice.

Major-General SEELY: This is a very unfortunate proposal. As Chairman of the Committee I received from different Government Departments their suggestions that Bills which have hitherto been annual Bills should not be made permanent, but should be so continued. My hon. Friend's Department wanted to make these annual Bills. It is just that sort of thing that the House set up the Committee to put a stop to. It is a most unreasonable method of conducting Parliamentary business, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not press the Amendment. It flies in the face of the unanimous Report of the Committee set up by this House.

Mr. NEAL: If there has been any misunderstanding and the object of what is suggested now would be to leave it to expire, which is not what is desired, I will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage, but I think there is a unanimous desire that this Act should be annual rather than permanent.

Lord c. PERCY: The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the effect of not proposing this Amendment would be to drop this out of the Bill altogether. He is now proposing to leave out this Act from the list of laws made permanent, and to do so solely on the ground that he is under promise to introduce permanent legislation. He and other Ministers are under promise to introduce permanent legislation on a dozen subjects. The Committee unanimously decided that there was no argument for keeping these Acts under the Expiring Continuance system. This Amendment strikes at the root of the whole Report.

Viscount CURZON: I apologise for not being here when the Amendment was proposed. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord c. Percy) has referred to the Report. Paragraph 10, page 5, of the Report says:
The Committee have acted throughout on the assumption that an Act originally experimental in its character has remained in force for a considerable space of time, and during that time has been annually renewed without opposition. There is strong presumption that that Act should, unless obsolete, be made permanent.
The Motor Car Act was passed in 1903 and was to last three years. It has been continued annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but it has been admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions that that Act is in effect obsolete. Several of its provisions do not now apply and want revision. Therefore I hope that the Committee will not be swayed by the opposition which has been offered to this Amendment.

Lord E. PERCY: We are not proposing to repeal this enactment.

Viscount CURZON: You are proposing that it should be made permanent.

Mr. THOMAS: On this Friday afternoon a proposal is put down by a private Member, and he is not present to move his own Amendment. In the ordinary way, it would have lapsed, and, to the amazement of everybody, someone representing the Government moves it, notwithstanding the fact that it is in the teeth of the recommendations made by the Committee which the Government set up. Such a procedure must be not only novel, but amusing, to all the colleagues of the bon. Gentleman. I submit that this thing must be treated more seriously. If on the Treasury Bench someone runs wild, as Members sometimes do on this bench, they should take steps at once to deal with him, as we do. I submit that the colleagues of the Parliamentary Secretary should say to him, "Really, you did not quite understand what you were doing. You made a hopeless mistake; you have put the Government in a difficulty, and we have to throw you overboard immediately."

Mr. NEAL: This is not a matter to which I attach much importance. If my right hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee (Major-General Seely) thinks it right that this Act should be made permanent, it really bas no serious effect. There is amending legislation contemplated.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has indicated that he is an expert swimmer. He has also shown his powers as a gymnast. But he has not explained

(18)








5 Edw. 7. c. 18.
The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
The whole Act
…
…
…
9 Edw. 7. c. 7.

Under the provisions of this Act every municipal corporation and every urban district council with a population of over 15,000 persons is required to appoint a distress committee. These distress committees have been appointed annually. They have no functions to discharge, and local authorities consider that the Act should be repealed. This is not the time even for the pretence of making an Act permanent. Therefore if this Act is to be continued, it should be continued in the Third Schedule, and not in the First Schedule. I would like

to us what he proposes to do on the Report stage.

Mr. NEAL: I propose to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain BENN: I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) what his position is now. I think we should have some further explanation.

Viscount CURZON: Like the last speaker I want to know where we stand. This Act is admitted to be obsolete. The Select Committee say that unless an Act is obsolete it should come under the permanent class. This is an obsolete Act.

Lord c. PERCY: Then repeal it.

Viscount CURZON: When the Government are asked to repeal this Act, they say they have not the time. This Act falls within the conditions laid down by the Select Committee. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to reconsider the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Major-General SEELY: I think my Noble Friend has not quite appreciated the meaning of the Amendment. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for proposing to withdraw it. The Select Committee went carefully through every Bill. You might use the same argument about almost every Bill in the Schedule, and the whole of the labours of my Committee would have been in vain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. NEWTON: I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

to register a protest against the way in which this business has been brought before us. There are over 50 Acts of Parliament which we have had to read between Wednesday and Friday, and it seems to me, that when so many Acts are to be made permanent the authorities concerned—and they are numerous, important, and influential—should have been given more notice of the proposals of the Government.

Sir A. MOND: I hope the Committee will support the Select Committee's recommendation in this matter. It is
really useless to appoint a Select Committee to go through this long and complicated business and then proceed to reconsider it on an occasion like the present. The hon. Member says this Act ought to be repealed. It would be just

SECOND SCHEDULE.


ENACTMENTS REPEALED.


1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far repealed.
Amending Acts.


(1)






1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 55
The National Insurance Act, 1911.
Section Seventy-eight
…
—


(2)






3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 26
The Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913.
Subsection (2) of section six
…
—


(3)






5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 4
The Land Drainage Act, 1914.
Subsection (2) of section four
—


(4)






9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 59.
The Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919.
Sections three, four, and five
…
—


(5)






10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 44.
The Fertilisers (Temporary Control of Export) Act, 1920).
The whole Act
…
—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I think the Committee ought to know what is in Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, which we are now repealing. There is no reference to any amending Bill in the Schedule. One would think we were repealing some section that had not been dealt with by other legislation. In other cases we referred to amending Acts

THIRD SCHEDULE.


ENACTMENTS CONTINUED.


Part I.


1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far continued.
A mending Acts.


(1)








46 & 47 Vict. c. 60
The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883.
The whole Act
…
…
…
48 &49 Vict. c. 77.








49 & 50 Vict. c. 59.








54 & 55 Vict. c.48.








54 & 55Vict. c. 71.








55 & 56 Vict. c. 7.








59 & 60 Vict. c.58.








61 & 62 Vict. c. 37.

as easily repealed in the one Schedule as in the other, but excellent work is being done under its provisions.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

passed since the original Act, but in this case there is nothing of the kind.

Sir A. MOND: Section 78 of the Act of 1911 provided that in cases of difficulty arising, the Insurance Commissioners might, with the consent of the Treasury, modify the provisions of the Act. This Section has now become obsolete and is no longer required, as the Insurance Commissioners under their present constitution have full powers.

1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far continued.
Amending Acts.


46 &47 Vict. c. 60—continued.
The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883—continued.
The whole Act—continued.






3 Edw. 7. c. 37.





6 Edw. 7. c. 37.





7 Edw. 7. c. 44.





9 Edw. 7. c. 42.





1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 19.





4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 32.





8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 20.





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 55.


(2)





58 & 59 Viet. c. 21
The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1895.
The whole Act
—


(3)





4 Edw. 7. c. 24
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904.
The whole Act
—


(4)





7 Edw. 7. c. 55
The London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907.
As to the abolition of the privileged cab system, Section two.
—


(5)





1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 55
The National Insurance Act, 1911.
Section forty-two
3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 37.





4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 57.





4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 81.





7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 62.





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 10.


(6)





2 & 3 Geo. 5. c. 2
The Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912.
The whole Act
—


(7)





4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 3
The Grey Seals Protection Act, 1914.
The whole Act
—


(8)





7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 19
The Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1917.
The whole Act
12 Geo. 5. c 2.


(9)





7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 42
The Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917.
The whole Act
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c 83.


(10)





8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 23
The Juries Act, 1918
Section seven
12 Geo. 5. c. 2.


(11)





9 & 10 Geo. 5.c.92
The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.
Section one
—


(12)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 97
The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.
Sections one and two
—


(13)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 99.
The Housing (Additional Powers) Act. 1919.
Sections one, two, eleven, and thirteen so far as they apply to Scotland.
—


(14)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 57.
The Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920.
The whole Act.
—


(15)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 58.
The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920.
The whole Act
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c 60.


(16)





11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 66.
The National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921.
The whole Act.
—

PART II.


(17)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 35.
The Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919.
Section twenty-five.
—

PART III


1.
2.
3.
4.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
How far continued.
Amending Acts.


(18)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 60.
The Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland), Act, 1919.
Section twenty-two.
—

PART IV.


(19)





6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 12.
The Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916.
Section five, except paragraph (a); Sections six, seven, nine, and twelve; Section thirteen, except subsection (6); Sections fourteen, twenty-one, twenty-two, and twenty-three, and subsection (1) of section twenty-four.
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 12.


(20)





6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 55.
The Local Government (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1916.
The whole Act
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 12.


(21)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 47.
The Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920.
So far as it authorises the making or revoking in whole or in part, of Part III of the Sale of Food Order, 1921, and provides for the enforcement and imposes penalties for the breach thereof.
—

PART V.


(22)




11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 1.
The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921.
The provisions as to increases in the rates of unemployment benefit and in the rates of contributions.
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 15.

PART VI.


(23)





10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 29.
The Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920.
As to the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the granting of credits and the giving of new guarantees.
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 26.





11 & 12 Geo 5. c. 65.

PART VII.


(24)





8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 34
The Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918.
So far as it relates to tramway undertakings.
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 14.

Part VIII.


(25)








59 & 60 Vict. c. 16.
The Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.
The whole Act
…
…
…
2 Edw. 7. c. 42








7 Edw. 7. c. 13.


(26)








59 & 60 Vict. c. 37.
The Agricultural Bates Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act. 1896.
The whole Act
…
…
…
60 & 61 Vict. c. 53.








7 Edw. 7. c. 13.








l & 2 Geo. 5. c. 49.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out


(3)








4 Edw. 7. c. 24.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904.
The whole Act
…
…
…
—


The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, is the principal Act conferring powers on the Post Office to control wireless telegraphy and telephoning, and is an annual Act. Hitherto, that Act has been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It does continue until the end of this year in any case. The Postmaster-General has a Bill now before the House for extending his powers, as conferred by the Act of 1904, to a more general control over this developing science. Therefore, my first point is that there is no necessity to continue this Act till 1923, as proposed here. My second, and more serious complaint, is that the powers of the Postmaster-General under this Act are being used in a very unexpected and, as I think, in a very improper way, and therefore I take the first opportunity of seeking to limit those powers or to deprive him of them altogether. I refer to the new scheme which he is carrying through in connection with the broadcasting of wireless messages. Everybody realises that this is an enormous advance in the matter of public news. Broadcasting a message, as anyone who has read the accounts from America knows, will be a supplement to the newspaper, and altogether marks quite a new stage in the civilisation of our country and our ordinary social life. Indeed, since the invention of the printing-press, it is almost the most important thing that has happened.
The Postmaster-General, so far as I can learn—and he has been good enough to answer questions on the subject at great length—proposes to put the broadcasting plans into the hands of a monopoly. The Marconi Company is one of the component members of that combine, I understand. The right hon. Gentleman only named three, but we understand that the combine will contain those three and other companies, who submit to the regulations of the combine. What powers are going to be conferred upon this monopoly for the broadcasting of wireless messages? I understand that they have asked that the apparatus that they use for the transmission of messages and the apparatus which is to be used for the reception of messages are to be of British manufacture only. I suggest
that when this House tells the Postmaster-General that he has power to license applicants, it does not intend him to use that power to carry out some fiscal system, well or ill-conceived, which happens to commend itself to his mind at the moment. Supposing the Ministry of Agriculture is empowered to license dogs, no one would say they were using their powers properly if they refused to license a French dog; supposing the Home Office refused to license a Renault car because it has a French motor engine, that would be an abuse of their power.
This matter was referred to, but not very fully, in the Committee, and the Postmaster-General said that this country should not allow this new form of communication to be exploited by foreign manufacturers. He is proposing to allow it to be exploited by some unknown combine, of unknown composition, with unknown powers, but having behind them the force of the Post Office, through the penalties which they are empowered by this Act to impose. He has to issue the licence, and he has to impose the penalties, so that we come to this position, that these fortunate individuals or companies who have the monopoly propose conditions which give them an effective monopoly, not only of broadcasting transmission, which may be very proper, because obviously we must, have control of the transmission of messages, but also of the control of the instruments for receiving messages. I hold that the more people there are who receive these broadcast messages, the better for society as a whole. What harm could them possibly be in some individual, in some place, subject to the ordinary Regulations as regards area, and subject to payment for a licence, which I think reasonable, constructing his own apparatus, or purchasing an apparatus from abroad, or getting it in any way he thinks fit, and receiving the messages which are being broadcasted?
If the Postmaster-General says that nobody shall be in possession of a receiving apparatus unless it complies with the specification made in the financial interests of the fortunate people who have joined this combination, how is he to carry out his orders? Suppose I get my licence,
pay my 10s. and set up my apparatus, and then get an apparatus from abroad, or get it partly made at home and partly abroad, how can the Postmaster-General possibly prevent me from using it? Either the law should be obeyed and enforced, or else it should not be enacted, because nothing brings the law so much into contempt as failure to enforce it. How can the Postmaster-General, unless he intends to limit this thing to a very narrow circle of listeners, possibly enforce these Rules about the specification? He cannot possibly do it. I asked him the question, and his reply to that was that the companies, in providing these instruments, would see that the specification was observed. Other people who use instruments which they import into this country, on parts of which they pay duty, are to be prevented from using those instruments for the purpose of receiving messages. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do it unless he intends to have a large number of inspectors peeping about the streets and inspecting every apparatus to see if it complies with the specification laid down, by the Postmaster-General. I think the whole business is improper. The House in in great ignorance of the full particulars. They have sought information, but they have not got it.
Then what arrangements as to copyright has the Postmaster-General made about the messages to be sent out? Newspaper news is going to be supplemented by this broadcasting. If a newspaper, at considerable expense, secures news, it is perfectly right that it should be protected in the monopoly of that news for some period, say 24 hours. In the dark as we are, knowing nothing about Regulations or terms of agreement with this unknown monopoly, what guarantee have the newspapers got that their copyright will be secure? I am all in favour of the maximum circulation of news, and the freest communication between people, as a civilising influence, but I think the newspaper Press is at least entitled to be assured that their copyright in this matter is not being interfered with. I have no desire to take up more time of the House than necessary. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane-Mitchell) appears to regard that as a great joke—

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: A great joke!

Captain BENN: The hon. Member's contributions to Debate consist mostly of objections and interruptions. The proper course to pursue in this matter is for a Select Committee to be set up to inquire into it. Here we have Regulations being made on behalf of the Government touching one of the most important advances which have been made for centuries in the circulation of news, and I think what I suggest is very desirable. A Select Committee should go into the question and so re-assure the House that the terms of these contracts will be proper and in the public interest.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I am glad that at last we have got the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the open on this business—

Captain BENN: What do you mean by that?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I feel that in this matter—

Captain BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Will the Postmaster-General kindly explain what he means by the words that "he is glad we have got the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the open?" What does he mean by the words?

Mr. KELLAWAY: What the words mean I should have thought would be obvious to every Member of this House.

Captain BENN: They are a gross insult.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I propose on this occasion to speak with a good deal of frankness. I very much doubt if the hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving his proposal has considered that it will, if carried, put an end to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. Does he realise, as a responsible Member of this House, the consequences involved in his action? It is all very well on this Motion to discuss all sorts of details of the broadcasting scheme. That is not what this proposal will affect if hon. Members opposite succeed in getting it carried. If it be carried, and the Act is not continued beyond the period for which it is current, there will be no control of wireless in this country. The Admiralty will be unable to communicate with the Fleet. The Air Ministry will be unable to communicate with their aircraft. No one in
this country will be able to rely on efficient communication with anyone at sea. These things are proposed as a light and airy way of spending Friday afternoon. I say there should be some sense of responsibility at least in the proposals which are moved from the benches opposite. It is not made on the ground that the hon. Member has not had the opportunity of discussing the new Bill which I brought in. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made it clear that he and his Friends intend to resist the Bill line by line and Clause by Clause. They have, I am afraid, made it impossible that the Bill should be carried before the House rises.

Mr. KILEY: You have got the Committee stage.

Mr. KELLAWAY: That may be, but the hon. Gentleman and his Leaders on the Front Bench have made it clear that they do not intend to allow the Bill to pass. That is the contribution they propose to make to the development of what my hon. and gallant Friend himself has properly described as "one of the most important discoveries ever made in this country." Let me deal with some of the observations that my hon. Friend has thought fit to make on very imperfect information. He made the complaint, a curious one, I think, against me, that I have not given adequate replies to questions.

Captain BENN: No.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have given answers to every question put to me in regard to this scheme fully and in detail.

Captain BENN: I went out of my way to say that the Postmaster-General had done that.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have endeavoured to give the greatest possible information. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had had the greatest difficulty in finding out what was meant by this scheme. That is what I thought. Every question that has been put to me on this subject I have answered fully, and when it has not been possible to give the information to the House, I have taken other means of making the information public. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith says that I am "setting up a monopoly." On what is that statement based? Had he
seen my answer yesterday, he would have seen that it was an indication to those people to become members of the broadcasting company. No monopoly is possible under the terms which I have already indicated. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I am going to prevent a man constructing his own apparatus, and using it. I stated clearly yesterday that a man constructing his own apparatus would be allowed to continue the use of it.
What is the real objection of the hon. and gallant Member? He thinks that by a hack door I have been trying to introduce Tariff Reform and a Protectionist system. May I ask him to read one or two elementary text books on the subject of Free Trade, and then he will find out how little relation his charge of Protection in this connection has to this question. Is it something new in the experience of Government Departments that they have made a condition in the placing of contracts that the material which is bought with Government money shall be of British make? That is nothing new, because it has been the practice of the Post Office for many years to include in their contract a provision that the money shall be spent in this country, or upon British materials unless there be some overwhelming advantage to be derived by not so doing. In connection with this new invention, a Government Department has neither the audacity nor the ingenuity to exploit inventors. On the other hand, had I agreed to carry out this work myself, what a howl of indignation there would have been had I proceeded to buy German or American instruments for this work, and I am sure there would have been no one more indignant than hon. Members opposite.
I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of a fiscal question which does not properly arise now, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will only read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in the Debate on Dyestuffs, or the same right hon. Gentleman's speeches in connection with the Paris Resolutions, he will find how little relation there is between the actual facts and the charge that I am trying to introduce a protective system by a backdoor. We have to keep this new form of communication in this country in the hands of our own people, and see that our
manufacturers in regard to every branch of it have a technical skill and capacity for production equal to anything in the world. I am advised by those engaged in this industry that in about two years there will probably be some £6,000,000 spent in the purchase of receiving sets and the broadcasting system, and that as much as 80 per cent. of that total will go in wages. I am prepared to argue fully this question, not only in this House, but, if necessary, in the country, and I am prepared under the authority of the Act of Parliament to make it a condition of the granting of these licences that these instruments shall be of British manufacture. That has been made sufficiently clear. Sufficient notice has already been given, not only that I intend that that should be a condition, but that I do not intend to allow it to be evaded by persons, who I know are already seeking means by which they may get round this condition.

Captain W. BENN: How are you going to prevent evasion?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If I were to explain how I intend to prevent evasion, it would make evasion easier. I ask the Committee just to consider what my hon. and gallant Friend is proposing. He has admitted, so far as broadcasting is concerned, that it must be in the hands of British firms.

Captain W. BENN: No, I said that there must be Government control over broadcasting messages. That is obvious; otherwise, the air would be too full of sound.

Mr. KELLAWAY: Then we may have in this country some German or American or French firm setting up these broadcasting stations and allowed to engage in what has always been regarded as an essential monopoly to be controlled by the Government. It is an unthinkable proposition, and I am certain that no one who ever hopes to be Postmaster-General would ever agree to allowing a new form of communication of this kind to be in the hands of foreign firms. Supposing we proposed in connection with telegraphy or telephony to allow people to come in from abroad, what would be said? We are quite competent to look after our own communications without foreign assistance. He then proceeds to
attack me with regard to the receiving sets. I have said that these must be of British manufacture. It is a common practice of Government Departments—it certainly is in the Post Office—to make conditions in their contracts to the effect that the material purchased with public money must, unless there be some overwhelming reason to the contrary, be of British make. Is there an overwhelming reason to the contrary here why we should allow the importation of foreign sets for this purpose? Is it because we are not technically efficient in this country to produce them? I would advise my hon. and gallant Friend to consult some Members of this House who speak with great authority on this matter. They will tell him that the electrical firms of this country have reached as high a degree of efficiency as any in the world. Is it that the hon. and gallant Member is afraid of a monopoly? I have already said that the scheme is open to every bonâ fide fide electrical manufacturer in this country. Everyone can take a part in this scheme.
Look at it from the other point of view. The electrical industry to-day is severely depressed. It is one of the industries in which the rate of unemployment is very high, and, apart from the overwhelming argument in favour of the course which I have taken, I should like to know with what face we could go into any of these great centres where the electrical workmen are walking the streets and say we propose to sanction a scheme under which the communications of the country can be exploited for the benefit of foreign workers. My hon. and gallant Friend, if he will permit me to say so with great respect, has overlooked an old text, which runs
The letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive.
He is trying to score a little party advantage regardless of the very great public disadvantage which would be caused. He has worked very hard in this connection in various ways to try and arouse some agitation outside, and he has not had a single response. Not from a single quarter have I had a protest against what I have done. So far as I am aware, the only organ in the Press which has made any response to my hon. and gallant Friend's pathetic efforts has been the "Westminster Gazette."

Captain BENN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that I have worked very hard to try and arouse agitation?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have no doubt my hon. Friend has done so quite unconsciously.

Captain BENN: I have done nothing of the kind.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will do my best to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question. By persistent questioning in the House, and by the sort of Amendment which he puts on the Order Paper, he has done so—quite properly I admit. But that is not the point I am emphasising. The point is that he has met with no response from anywhere. The whole of the Press of the country, and common sense as well, are against him, whether it be Free Trade or Tariff Reform. This aspect of the case which alone occupies my hon. and gallant Friend, is after all a very small part of what is involved. If he succeed in preventing the renewal of this Act, he will have created chaos, whether he call it Free Trade or by whatever name. I repeat that the only control of wireless which exists in this country is contained in the Act which my right hon. Friend is asking this Committee not to allow to continue in operation, and this result will ensue if my hon. and gallant Friend gets his way—if he gets his little bit of party capital out of it. The Admiralty will not be able to communicate with the Fleet.

Captain BENN: Nonsense!

Mr. KELLAWAY: If my hon. Friend says it is nonsense, it shows he has not studied the A B C of the question.

Captain BENN: I repeat it is nonsense.

Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no power apart from the Government to regulate wireless outside this country, and this is what will ensue if this Act be not renewed. Any man can erect any station of any power he likes around our coasts. He can communicate with any place he pleases, and we cannot prevent him. He can jam every signal which is being sent, and he will do so in the ordinary course of the operations of that station. He could jam every signal being sent, whether by the Admiralty to the Fleet or by the Air Minister to aircraft, or by any one
individual in this country trying to communicate with persons at sea. This is the price and the risk he is willing to run in what he calls the interests of the system of Free Trade—of which he has not yet learned the elementals.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman, in his heated speech, has made an attack on my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend feels duly admonished, and will take the greatest possible care not again to intervene in the Debates in this House without getting the Postmaster-General's licence. I suggest that the licence should be in the terms of the Act which we are now considering, that is to say, that
Every such licence shall be in such form and for such purpose as the Postmaster-General may determine, and it shall contain the terms, conditions and restrictions under and subject to which the licence is granted.
Then, of course, we shall see that Parliament is moving in accordance with the best traditions which the Postmaster-General has laid down. What has my hon. and gallant Friend done? He has taken a proper, and appropriate, Parliamentary opportunity, which the right hon. Gentleman, in other, and, I think, better days, used also to take, of bringing before Parliament a subject of general interest, which there is very little chance of raising at another stage of the proceedings. That is all that he has done. The Postmaster-General has endeavoured to make the flesh of the Committee creep by stating what would happen if this Amendment were carried. In any event, however, the Act goes on till Christmas, and there is to be an Autumn Session, during which a Bill could be brought before the House. I do not really know whether the right hon. Gentleman was serious, or whether he was attempting to amuse himself by working up indignation and endeavouring to show that my hon. and gallant Friend was occupying a ridiculous position. All I can say is that I do not think the Postmaster-General really increased his influence or his position in the House by the speech that he made.
I say again that my hon. and gallant Friend exercised a proper Parliamentary opportunity of laying his case before the Committee, which he did very fairly and, from my point of view, with very good effect. He was met with a tornado of
abuse front the Minister in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went into the most irrelevant observations about Tariff Reform, Free Trade, and all the rest of it, referring my hon. and gallant Friend to textbooks and to further study of the question, in which he himself used to believe, although I congratulate his colleagues who are now on the Government Bench on his having become a convert to their particular faith. That is as it may be, but the action which has been taken in this case by my hon. and gallant Friend is justified on the facts of the situation. All that he wants is that there should be proper opportunities in this country for the development of this particular industry. I myself regard it with feelings of the greatest possible alarm, but here it is. The Postmaster-General himself said that the principal manufacturers of wireless apparatus in Great Britain will combine to form a company or companies to provide broadcasting services. We want to find out what that means, and I cannot imagine any better place for discussing this great public question than in this Committee here and now on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. What does the combine mean? First of all, you are going to shut out foreign competition. I suppose that an integral part of this apparatus is included under the Safeguarding of Industries Act already, but, not content with that, the Government have decided to exclude all chance of foreign competition. That I can understand, but they are also going to what is called "corner" the whole market. They are going to form, as an hon. Member behind me says, an additional trust at home. What harm is there in discussing it? The Postmaster-General objects to our discussing it.

Mr. KELLAWAY: indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: But he does. He said it is a most unpatriotic thing to do. "It is one of the most shameless exhibitions of party spirit in opposition." I think it ought to be discussed. This is probably the only opportunity we are going to get. I will leave for the moment the question of the advantage to the consumer of having the choice between home-made and foreign-made instruments and confine myself altogether to the question of the combine at home, and I will assume that the Postmaster-General has issued
me a licence and that I have his gracious permission to ask him for more particulars about this combine. Everyone who is interested at home is entitled to know what the Government Department proposes to do with regard to this combine, and we are entitled to have an answer, so that in any event there is going to be no cornering and no trust at home, but within these shores at any rate there shall he free play of competition. That is a question which should be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and if unsatisfactory answers are given I shall take all the risk of his displeasure and of the calumny which must fall upon us for so unpatriotic an action as voting against, him in the Division Lobby.

Sir D. NEWTON: I am very glad to think the Debate is taking place, because. I hope it may mean that facilities will be found for carrying the Bill through to its concluding stages. There are at least three points of view from which this question should be reviewed. There are the scientific reasons in support of the proposal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the proposals of the Postmaster-General with regard to the Bill. I understand the Act of 1904, which it is proposed to continue, gives great powers to the Postmaster-General, and it is only the powers under that Act which are open o review and discussion now. Hon. Members must not deal with the Bill.

Sir D. NEWTON: I was endeavouring to indicate that it was desirable to proceed to amplify those powers, and I hope at any rate the Motion will not be carried, because the whole of the wireless telegraphy situation would he in a state of chaos. It is necessary that wireless receiving sets should he obliged to conform to certain definite regulations, because unless they do they will give off radiations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the new proposals. We cannot discuss those now.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. MALONE: I would not detain the House any longer had the Postmaster-General not deliberately and wilfully misrepresented the contentions of those who have put down Amendments to the new Bill which is coming before the House next week. He
says he has given us details of the new scheme. If I turn to the reply he gave yesterday to a question which he has taken such great care to publish broadcast to the Press I find he is forming a combine. He says that the private manufacturing companies are able to be members of this combine. Is their power in the combine in proportion to the amount of capital they subscribe? If it is in accordance with the amount of capital which these small companies subscribe, then, as far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman is going by this Bill to put a monopoly into the hands of the big constructive companies. The Postmaster-General told us that about £6,000,000 are going to be spent on broadcasting in the course of the next year or so, and he said that 80 per cent. of this money would be spent in labour. If that is so, then the companies from which the Postmaster General got his information must be operating on an extraordinarily in efficient system. Take two simple vital parts which constitute the receiving apparatus, and you find, first of all as regards double-head piece telephones, that the American article can be got for 30s., whereas the British equivalent, in quality and material in every respect, costs 40s. If I turn to the thermionic valve, which is a vital essential of all receiving sets, I find that the Marconi valve costs 26s. retail, whereas the same apparatus in America or France only costs 3s. or 4s.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Are these prices contained in the Act of 1904, and are we discussing whether they are to be kept in or left out?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Postmaster-General has power under the Act of 1904 to spend this money or to sanction this policy. If I am correct, then the hon. Member is in order. If I am not correct, he is not in order.

Mr. MALONE: I do not propose to go into all the details, but I shall raise them at greater length at a later stage. The Postmaster-General has wilfully misrepresented the intention of hon. Members who have put down Amendments in saying that we are not protecting the interests
of the people outside. We are protecting the interests, not merely of the hundreds of small wireless instrument makers, but also the million or so people who will be purchasing receiving sets in the course of the next 12 months. The two items that I have mentioned were only two out of numerous other technical parts of receiving sets which show the enormously exaggerated prices which the protection given in this Bill permits, and which millions of people have to pay to these monopolist concerns. The Marconi Company, which has practically a monopoly in this respect, cannot possibly supply more than one-twentieth of the needs of the present time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the powers of the Postmaster-General under this Act, and he is going on to the powers which he seeks in the Bill.

Mr. MALONE: Even if the Amendment be carried, this Bill will be in operation until the end of 1922, and there is plenty of time between now and then to set up a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to consider what should be done, instead of bringing this matter before us in a hole and corner way, and answering vague questions, such as was the case yesterday. Everybody knows that the trade in this country is full up with orders for receiving instruments. If you inquire of any of the well-known small firms you will find that they are constructing between 10,000 and 20,000 instruments. They cannot anything like supply the needs of the country. This protective system which is preventing up-to-date instruments being obtained in this country is driving the amateur receivers to purchase out of date instruments. They have to buy crystal receivers, which are not anything like so effective or efficient as is the valve system. That is putting a handicap on the progress of wireless broadcasting in this country. I protest against the deliberate misrepresentation by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. KILEY: It is well known in this House that the Postmaster-General is gifted in many ways, but until this afternoon it was not generally known that he possesses all the qualifications of a good lawyer. That is, that when you have any doubt about your brief, make good by going baldheaded for your opponent.
That he has done with a vigour which has been interesting, and has enlivened an otherwise dull afternoon. What would have been very much more interesting to some Members of the House would have been the details which have been requested in relation to this subject. The Postmaster-General drew an appalling picture of what would happen if we did not confirm the continuance of the 1904 Act. That picture left us a little cold, for the very good reason that if there were any danger such as he suggested—a ship in distress unable to communicate with the land in order to get assistance—he knows very well that he has only to come, to this House and we would pass into law in a few hours such Measures as would prevent a calamity of that kind. The Postmaster-General said that he intended to exercise certain powers for limiting the use of certain instruments, and that he has provided for a combination which certain people may enter. He carefully refrained, however, from giving us one iota of information as to the conditions on which one is permitted to enter the combination. Is the combination to be limited to those in a certain trade? He mentioned the electrical trade more than once. Must the manufacturer be in the electrical trade before he can enter the combine? What penalty or amount must a manufacturer pay before he is admitted? Must a manufacturer provide

thousands of pounds as a condition of entrance? If that is not the case, what other conditions are there?

If it were a question of finding more money for broadcasting stations, there are several ways in which that could be done. If the half-guinea which the Postmaster-General is charging is not sufficient to provide for broadcasting, he might make a grant from his Post Office funds or he might increase the charge of 10s. 6d. I am as much interested as the Postmaster-General in British industry. I am more concerned to have the assurance that the British public will have at their command the very best instruments that brains and money can produce. It is very foolish to erect a barrier which would prevent our having the benefit of any invention or discovery and to permit the Postmaster-General to say that we shall or shall not have the best instrument that can be provided. That would be a dictatorship and a monopoly of a very dangerous kind. Before the Postmaster-General puts his powers into operation, I hope he will let the public know definitely what are the conditions for the working of this combination.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 30.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, W. H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Sutherland, Sir William
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Taylor, J.
Windsor, Viscount


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Winterton, Earl


Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wise, Frederick


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Townley, Maximillan G.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wallace, J.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Warren, Sir Alfred H.



Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stewart, Gershom
Whitla, Sir William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.




NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby.)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tillett, Benjamin


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cape, Thomas
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wignall, James


Gillis, William
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C>


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out


(11)





9 & 10 Geo. 5. c.92.
The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.
Section one.
—


In 1914, during the early stages of the War, the Aliens Restriction Act was passed, conferring upon the Home Secretarty very drastic powers. Those powers were continued once—in 1919—and would in the ordinary course expire in December, 1922. but it is now proposed to continue them until December, 1923. I contend that the continuance of such autocratic DOWNS in the hands of the Horne Secretary is quite unnecessary. Such powers can only be justified by the circumstances of war and are totally improper in a democratic State in times of peace. I will not retail all these powers, but they include powers to prohibit aliens from landing; to impose restrictions on them when they land; to prohibit them from going: to deport them; to force them to reside in certain areas; prohibiting them from remaining in other areas save under licence; compelling them to be registered; appointing officers—I do not know what that costs—and any other matters which appear necessary or discreet. Such a wide power as that is quite inappropriate in times of peace. We know that the great need of to-day is to get back to peace conditions and to get rid of restriction and interference in every way. Such powers as these may be, and indeed are, exercised in respect of aliens who come here for the purpose of engaging in trade. Surely it is in our interest that
they should have the greatest facilities, just as we ourselves, when we go abroad for purposes of trade, desire to have the greatest facilities for ourselves. In short, we want free communications between all countries, in order that the economic health of the world may be restored. These powers are hostile to such an ideal. They were only granted—and properly granted—in the emergency of the War, and it is time now that they came to an end.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): There are many restrictions which are necessary in war-time, but which are distinctly undesirable in times of peace; but I do not think anyone in this Committee would deny for a moment that we cannot possibly allow aliens from any part of the world, of any sort and description, to come here without restriction. We are bound to protect ourselves from undesirable persons of all kinds who might otherwise come into the country. I would also remind the Committee that when this Act of 19l9 was passed, it was made a temporary Measure, because it was hoped that we should have sufficient time and experience to put our Regulations and our statutory provisions in regard to aliens upon a more permanent basis Experi-
ence has taught us one thing, and that is that it is very difficult indeed to bring in any permanent legislation with regard to aliens which would be always satisfactory. Indeed, your Rules and Regulations must constantly be changing as circumstances change all over the world, and for that reason it has been almost impossible to come to any sort of decision or guidance as to what form permanent legislation on the subject should take. Clearly, this year it would be out of the question to pass legislation of a permanent character on the subject. If we did not continue the present legislation, therefore, the result would be that we might have a small invasion of undesirable persons coming in and flooding our labour market, many of

(15)








10 & 11 Geo. 5 c. 58.
The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920.
The whole Act
…
…
…
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 60.

The Act was passed in 1920, but it really contains a code passed during the stress of war in 1916. It contains D.O.R.A. Regulations. Prior to that period there had been an Act of 1912, which gave to local bodies of shopkeepers various powers for the closing of their own shops, but when the War had been going on for a couple of years, and there was a shortage of coal, gas and labour, all sorts of strange Measures were adopted for the purpose of winning the War. A new code was adopted for shops which was supposed to be only a war Measure, and it should only have been a war Measure. It should have been dropped when peace was concluded. It impinges very much upon the liberty of the small shopkeeper. Prior to that Act, unless there was an overwhelming vote of shopkeepers in an area, the small shopkeeper who did not employ assistance could open and shut pretty well as he chose. I contend that it is utterly unreasonable, four years after the War, to be continuing this Act, and to be subjecting small shopkeepers to an inspection to which no other class of labour in this country has to submit. You may have statutory hours of labour in coalmines or elsewhere affecting the wageearner who is employed. We have had it for a considerable number of years and I do not think anyone wants to go back upon it. It is perfectly right that when a man is employed in labour that the hours of his labour should be regulated,
them probably dangerous persons, who might get in without our really knowing anything about them. For these and other reasons, it is absolutely essential that we should retain power to regulate the influx of aliens into this country, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment. He is quite right to make his protest, and to raise the point, because it is desirable, as far as we can, in peace time to get rid of what are really war-time restrictions, but alien restriction is necessary in peace-time, if not to the same extent as in war-time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

otherwise you would have undue exploitation of the wage-earner by those who employ him.

The case, however, is entirely different with a man who is working on his own account, and to use this code established for war purposes to suppress him—for that is what it amounts to—is not right. The code was introduced in 1920, and all the shopkeepers closed except the eating departments. The discharged man came back from the War and found this code imposed upon him. If he wanted to start a little shop of his own, and, if possible, to gather up some of the crumbs that fell from the table of the rich shopkeeper, after the big shops were closed, when he might hope, perhaps, behind his own counter, to get customers who were engaged for long hours and had not the the time to shop except then, he found that it could not be done. He found this extraordinary code around his neck. The big Shopkeepers' Association—because, after all, the big shops have run the Early Closing Associations, and have provided a fund by which they can keep up this enormous agitation against any attempt to introduce a rational system of regulating the hours of employment, instead of regulating the hours of the shop—I say the big shops are behind all this, and using their own employés as a cover have closed the small shops so as to get the business into their own hands.

The curious thing is this: When I propose—I suppose the Labour Members would call me a reactionary Tory—to protect the small employer against the big shopkeeper and to give him reasonable and limited hours of work and reduce his hours from 19 or 12 to 8 hours, the Labour party stand up and resist me and prevent the shopkeeper's assistant getting reasonable hours of labour which they desiderate for all classes of labour. This question was, I find on looking back to 1920, before the House then. I find that on 30th July, 1920, the Shops (Early Closing) (No. 2) Bill—the one which is now being renewed—was brought forward. It was introduced in what I think would probably be styled a rather perfunctory speech by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office. It was pointed out by him or the Home Secretary that "there was so much confusion in regard to the closing of shops that it was better to continue the War Regulations than to have no Regulations for a period until things have adjusted themselves."

I find that the late Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer) opposed the Bill very strongly and pointed out the absurd anomalies of it. He showed how he could go into a shop and buy a little cooked meat, but could not buy the pickles to go with it, because that was against the Regulations. He also explained he could go to a theatre with his wife and could go out and buy whiskey for himself, but he could not get a box of chocolates for his wife in the theatre. This latter difficulty, however, has been removed. But the whole matter is riddled with distinctions, without any thought for the convenience of the public; because, mark you, the one thing I wish people engaged in business would get rid of this idea that they are carrying on their business and their occupation for their own good. That is the last thing they could think of. The man who is engaged in industry or a profession should always have regard to the customers and serve his clients' interests to the best of his ability. In doing so he would know that if you render the best possible service all other things will be added unto you. [Laughter.] That is an old maxim, I would remind hon. Members. They will find it in that old book of which possibly
some of them have a copy, and it is perfectly true. The small shopkeeper, it may be, served a very large part of the working classes, because the workman used to spend part of his evenings following his employment, going out with his wife to do the shopping. Now she has to get out in a hurry before the closing time of the shops, and at a time when she ought to be preparing her husband's meal for when he comes home. One of the evils in our country is the concentration of industry and wealth in few hands, and it is not a natural process. Our Limited Liability Acts are responsible for a great deal of these evils, because they have allowed a concentration of capital into single hands. One of the grievances in Scotland is that you could sometimes find one man with 19 farms in his own hands, with grieves working them. What you want to have is more individual ownership. I know that there is a strange view held by hon. Members opposite that there should be huge aggregations of capital—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has now got beyond the point as to whether this Act should be continued for another year or not. He must bear in mind that we are only considering the question of this Act being continued for another year, and so far as he directs his arguments to the continuation of this Bill, that will be in order; but the general Debate upon the Shop Hours Acts and their operation is distinctly out of order.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was trying to illustrate the danger of continuing this Statute, which has been continued since 1916, and I was trying to show that one of its effects has been a tendency to almost exterminate the small shopkeeper, or, at any rate, to make his lot very much more difficult. I am pleading for the small shopkeeper who ought not to have his liberty taken away from him under War Regulations which were continued in 1920 and which under this Bill will be continued for another 18 months—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already told us that.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think it is an absolute abuse that this Act should be continued, and I want the Committee to take advantage of what the Home Secre-
tary said we ought to do when he reminded the House that this Bill does not propose to take any permanent stand, but simply says that there has been a diversity of opinion amongst those concerned, and we ought to have time to look round, and therefore we propose the existing state of things for another 18 months. The right hon. Gentleman has had 18 months of it. On another occasion he said:
Let us go on for another 12 months, and, in the meantime, by investigation and discussion, we shall be able to arrive at what is the judgment of the House, and then we shad make that permanent.
Since then there has been no interest taken in this question, although there has been ample time.

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend says that there has been no discussion and no interest taken in shop hours, but I can assure him that his experience is very different from mine. The Committee will recollect that prior to the War there were very few regulations with regard to shop hours. They were chiefly local, made under the Act of 1912. During the War it became necessary for various reasons to regulate shop hours, and from 1916 to 1920 the workers in shops experienced the benefit of a reduction of hours. The result was that they pressed hard at the end of the War that the experience of shorter hours which they had gained in the War should be continued in times of peace. It is perfectly true that it was a difficult subject, and that at the end of the War there was some diversity of opinion, but I venture to think that diversity is very much smaller to-day, and certainly, so far as my information goes, every day the number of those who are in favour of these Provisions is growing and growing. I am sure that the House will realise that it is very difficult in industrial matters in times such as we are going through to put permanent provisions upon the Statute Book. We are not in normal times, and it is no use pretending that we are. Therefore, although we have been discussing this matter with those interested and concerned, obtaining all the opinions and all the experience that we can get, we do not feel that it would be wise this year to put a further Act upon the Statute Book. Consequently, we are asking the House to consent that this very salutary and beneficent Measure shall be con-
tinued for at least another year. It may be that as times improve we may come to some permanent arrangement, but in the meantime I hope that the House will consent to this Measure, beneficial as it is, being continued.

Mr. KILEY: I rise to make an appeal to the Home Secretary, that he should not let this matter drift indefinitely, as he rather hinted that he might be disposed to do. He will recall that in 1920 it was somewhat reluctantly agreed to pass the proposal, which he then presented, and for which he gave very good reasons. But it interfered very considerably with the Act of 1912, which gave to local authorities powers to deal with special cases and special events. I was approached, as the Home Secretary knows, a short time ago by the local shopkeepers outside great stations like Euston. On football day thousands of visitors come to London. They desire to take back with them some present or gift, but unless they purchase it early in the evening and cart it about with them — because the trains do not leave till late —they are unable to take those articles back. Under the Shop Act of 1912, the local authority in each area had power to deal with special occasions, and it was understood when the Act was agreed that the Home Secretary would have authority to continue those powers. On application being made to him to exercise these powers, the Home Secretary declined to do it on the ground that he could not interfere with the local districts, but he said he would be quite willing to interfere in cases of general holidays throughout the Kingdom. That is complained of very much in local areas, where there are special holidays and special occasions on which the shopkeepers desire to avail themselves of the special conditions made to meet their cases. When the Home Secretary is considering his new Bill, I hope he will bear that in mind.

Dr. MURRAY: I wish to say a word on behalf of the small shopkeepers. Take the case of a town where there are two men owning neighbouring small shops. One employs a boy or two; the other employs no one. The shopkeeper who employs a boy or two will be compelled to close at a certain hour, whereas his neighbour who does not employ anyone may keep open at all hours day and night.
This is a great injustice which is felt by a large number of small shopkeepers throughout the country, and in their interest I cannot support this Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there not some mistake. I thought the Question you put was that my Amendment stand part of the Schedule.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The hon. Member voted in favour of the words proposed to be left out standing part of the Schedule.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move, in Part IV, in the paragraph commencing 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 47, in column 3, to leave out the word "Part," and to insert instead thereof the words "Parts I and".
I do not know whether there is an unfortunate omission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in not inserting this in the Bill, but I may just briefly state the circumstances and ask for a favourable consideration of my proposal. Part I of the Sale of Food Order dealt with the question of bread. Part II dealt with the question of tea, in reference to which the Government brought in a Bill that has been sanctioned. In connection with it arose a question of the labelling of imported produce. Inasmuch as the Order so far as bread is concerned comes to an end on the last day of next month—the 31st August—and the Government had a Sale of Bread Bill which it has withdrawn for this Session, we shall be compelled to revert to the status quo before the War. My right hon. Friend well knows that a Committee was appointed and certain decisions were arrived at. The consuming public are anxious to retain the position which for the past five years has worked successfully under this Sale of Food Order—at any rate, until the Government have carried their Bill.

Mr. KILEY: I hope the Government will not do anything of the kind. It is admitted that the working of this Order under the Food Controller, when rationing was in vogue and when there were limited supplies, was essential. But there is not the slightest justification for con-
tinuing war-time orders to-day. If there is thought to be then they should be debated on their merits. As regards this very Order, about which my hon. Friend is so anxious, and which he says is such a great success, the Government themselves only propose partly to renew it in their new Bill. I am speaking from memory, but I am as certain as I can be without having the actual words before me that it is only intended to renew a part of the Order. We are entitled to ask for some further grounds for this continuance of war-time proposals, and also to ask at whose instigation and demand it is. As far as I can gather, in my locality there is no demand for it whatever. My hon. Friend appears to assume that the housewife, when she goes shopping or marketing, has no idea what she is getting or what she is paying, but he overlooks the fact that there is not now only one shop or one source of supply, as there was during the War; there are three or four shops fiercely competing with each other, and, if there is any profiteering going on, I do not think it is being done by the small shopkeepers. In these circumstances, I hope the Government will give a clear undertaking that this Order will be dropped, either now or in the very near future.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I hope the Committee will support the Government in the Bill as it stands, and will also support the Select Committee whose special duty it was to investigate these expiring laws. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that there was a demand on the part of the public that this present Regulation should be continued. I have not met with that demand, nor have I met anyone else who has met with it. It is quite true that this Order was introduced during the War by Lord Rhondda, and it was introduced for a special purpose, because of the possibility that the bread of the people might have to be rationed. It was an impossible Regulation to carry out in its literal sense, but the baking trade accepted it loyally and endeavoured to do their best with it, because it was in time of war. It has, however, been continued since the War, and was embodied in the Sale of Food Order which was passed in 1921, and is now the Sale of Bread Bill. Certain reasons were given to the House when that Order
was passed. The specific Order with regard to the sale of bread in pounds and multiples of pounds was not discussed, but the Minister of Food came down to the House and asked for certain powers to continue control of the milling and flour trades, and, as the flour mills were under control, the Minister of Food felt himself bound to reserve powers right through to bread at the other end, in case any Regulations had to be made. The Committee, of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), was the Chairman, says in its Report:
Your Committee are, therefore, of opinion that the system of extending the duration of temporary laws by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, so far from being a safeguard of the rights of Members, is, in fact, to some extent, liable to become a menace to those rights, inasmuch as temporary and experimental legislation is by this means continued from year to year.
They further say:
The Committee have not been impressed by these arguments"—
that is to say, the arguments with regard to controversial subjects—
or assented to the view that, as applied to any particular enactment, they afford sufficient cause for refraining from recomending that it should be made permanent.
This is a controversial Measure pure and simple, and the Committee specifically lay it down that no controversial Act should pass under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The hon. Member has referred to a Bill which has been left over until next Session. We are discussing now the Expiring Laws Bill and not the Future Laws Initiation Bill. I take it there is no desire on the part of the House to anticipate legislation which will be introduced in the autumn and very probably will be defeated—at any rate, it is controversial—and there is no reason whatever why the House should anticipate that legislation under theo Expiring Laws Bill. I hope the Committee will support the Government and the Committee that investigated the matter.

5.0 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): Perhaps it will help the Committee if I say why I think on the whole, giving due weight to all the considerations, the Amendment ought to be accepted. The hon. Member for
Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) and the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) have strong views on this question and, as is their habit, they have belaboured those who disagree with them in a very doughty manner, but I think the dust of the battle is really rather obscuring what is the very narrow issue, which I want to put to the Committee. There is a Sale of Bread Bill proposed by the Government, on the recommendation of a Committee. It turned out to be more controversial than was expected when it was introduced. The part of the Bill applying particularly to Scotland, indeed, has caused a great deal of controversy. The merits or demerits of the Scotch Clause, or any other part of the Bill, are not really relevant to the issue which is before us at the moment, but I mention it because there are two facts I want the Committee to keep in mind. In the first place there is the Bill. The hon. Members for Ardwick and Whitechapel say it is an unnecessary, vexatious and bad Bill. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) says it does not go far enough. I refrain from expressing any opinion about the Bill, by way of advocacy or condemnation, but I draw attention to the fact that there is a Bill. In the second place there is at present an Order dealing with the sale of bread by weight. It. has been in force for five years and it expires on 31st August next. It is clear that if a Bill on the subject be proceeded with during the Autumn Session it cannot reasonably be expected to operate before 1st January at the earliest. There will therefore be a gap between 31st August and 1st January in which we shall be reverting to the status quo. The hon. Member for Kettering sees this Order which is in operation and says, "It is better than nothing. Continue it until you pass a Sale of Bread Bill, which, I hope, will be in a form more acceptable than the present Order." The hon. Member for Ardwick says this Order is vexatious and repressive, and the sooner it dies a natural death the sooner I shall be happy. On the balance of administrative convenience, I think it is desirable to accept the Amendment and prolong the Order until such time as the House may have an opportunity of giving further consideration to the Sale of Bread Bill, because if you do not do that,
assuming that a Sale of Bread Bill passes in the Autumn Session, you will then have this ridiculous situation. Up to 31st. August, local authorities will be administering the present Order. Between the 31st August and, say, the 1st January, they will be administering the old Order, and after the 1st January they will be administering the new Sale of Bread Act. That is a state of administrative confusion which is clearly obnoxious to local authorities, and which I should have thought would be troublesome to the trade. Taking all these considerations into account, I think it is desirable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. KILEY: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of testing whether it is advisable or not to continue? If he finds that it is inadvisable, then he has his Bill in Draft, and he can put it into force.

Mr. HAILWOOD: This opens up a new situation. Up to the last moment we were under the impression that the Government intended to carry out the Expiring Laws Bill as printed on the Paper. Is it fair at the last moment that a new line of this sort should be taken because the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) has moved an Amendment? Is it fair, when this gap is not a gap at all, but is simply reverting to the pre-War practice? This style of selling bread by pounds and multiples of pounds has never been debated in this House, and there is no Bill relating to it which has passed a Second Reading. It simply means this, that officials in Whitehall have an idea that this is the right way to go about the business, and because of these officials this proposed Bill is brought in. Now, in spite of the recommendations of the Committee which have been investigating expiring laws, the Government representative wants to make his position secure by being in a better position, when he brings in his Bill, for inflicting this legislation on the trade. It is a preposterous line to take, and I hope the Committee will divide against the Government if they intend to take this line, and that they will support the Select Committee which has investigated the expiring laws. I hope the Bill will be passed as it stands.

Mr. HANNON: I entirely support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood). It is an unprecedented thing that the Government should at the last moment accept an Amendment of this character. In this House we have evidence brought forward frequently showing the desire of the country to get rid of the anomalies arising out of the War, and now the Government, having brought in a Bill which they were unable to pass on account of lack of time, accept an Amendment which keeps this anomalous restriction operative until, perchance, they have an opportunity of passing their Bill. If my hon. Friend divides against the Amendment, I shall support him.

Mr. WATERSON: I regret that the hon. Member for Ardwick should attempt to belittle the opportunity that is afforded to a private Member to bring forward Amendments and to endeavour to persuade the Government to accept them. That opportunity will be maintained in future by private Members. I have taken the proper method of dealing with what I consider to be an anomaly, and I cannot in any way be responsible for the apathy of other hon. Members. If other hon. Members have failed to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them, the responsibility is theirs. The hon. Member ought to give me some congratulation for taking a step which I consider to be justified. The restrictions which have been in operation have been unanimously decided upon as being the best in the interests of the consuming public. That decision was arrived at by the Committee set up by the Government to investigate the sale of bread, and the Government Committee which reported on the question of short weight was conclusive evidence of the need for some alteration in the position in which we found ourselves before these restrictions were brought in.

Mr. HAILWOOD: is the hon. Member referring to the Select Committee of 1914 or the Rathcreedan Committee?

Mr. WATERSON: I am referring to the Committee, before which my hon. Friend gave evidence, and to which I had the privilege of listening, presided over by Lord Rathcreedan. I hope, at any rate, that the Government will not alter their decision, and I thank them for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. HAILWOOD: The Rathcreedan Committee was specially arranged to suit the officials in Whitehall, so as to continue this Order. The recommendations of the Select Committee of 1914 are diametrically opposed to the legislation which the hon. Member proposes. That was a Committee of Members of this House, representative of all parties. It made certain recommendations with regard to tea and bread. The Government brought in a Tea Bill applying the recommendations with regard to tea, but they brought in a Bread Bill which was contrary to the recommendations with regard to bread. The Rathcreedan Committee was the biggest fraud of a Committee ever set up.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is the hon. Member in order in describing a Committee set up by Members of this House as a fraud?

Mr. HAILWOOD: It was not set up by this House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member make use of the observation referred to.

Mr. HAILWOOD: The Committee of 1914 was appointed by Members of this House and made a report which was not suitable to the officials in Whitehall, and they, through the instrumentality of the Ministry of Food, set up the Rathcreedan Committee. The Select Committee in 1914 heard evidence in public, and all the evidence was published afterwards, while the Rathcreedan Committee never published evidence and excluded the public form its sittings. In addition, it was packed with officials, and, though one half of this House consists of Coalition Unionists, there was not a single Coalition

Division No. 262.
AYES.
[5.13 p.m.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor, Viscount


Hallwood, Augustine
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Kiley, James Daniel
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Viscount Curzon and Mr. Hannon.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. sir A. Griffith-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Ammon, Charles George
Breese, Major Charles E.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cope, Major William


Balfour, George (Hampstead}
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davidson, Major-Genera! Sir J. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Brown, Major D. C.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barnes. Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Evans, Ernest


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bruton, Sir James
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Galbraith, Samuel


Barrand, A. R.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cape, Thomas
Gillis, William

Unionist on that Committee. The whole thing was a specially cooked affair.

Mr. LORDEN: Baked!

Mr. HAILWOOD: And it was to carry out the wishes of certain officials. I protest against this method of legislation.

Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to protest against the attitude adopted by the hon. Member. He had the opportunity of being summoned to give evidence before that Committee and uttering his protest against the composition of the Committee at that time. But he waits until now when he finds the Report of the Committee adverse to his idea, and, because its decision is opposed to his idea, he holds up the Committee as a fraud, whereas if its decision had been in the opposite direction he would have held it up as one of the best Committees ever appointed. I hope that the Government will stand by their pledge and accept the Amendment. The special pleading, by the hon. Member, for the master bakers of this country whom he represents—

Mr. HAILWOOD: On a point of Order. I do not represent the master bakers of this country. I represent my constituents. There is no benefit in any way to me from this.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member read out references from the master bakers, of whose association he is a member.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to explain his position.

Question put, "That the word 'Part' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 105.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Grundy, T. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Swan, J. E.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Taylor, J.


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Hirst, G. H.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Hogge, James Myles
Murchison, C. K.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Waterson, A. E.


Hudson, R. M.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Neal, Arthur
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Irving, Dan
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whitla, Sir William


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wignall, James


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Kennedy, Thomas
Pinkham, Lieut-Colonel Charles
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Pratt, John William
Wise, Frederick


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lorden, John William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lort-williams, J.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Young, Robert {Lancaster, Newton)


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John



McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on T.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Parker.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Major-General SEELY: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will get the Government to instruct the Treasury to carry out the fifteenth paragraph of the Report of the Committee, which will, we think, prevent an undue accumulation of Acts under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman can give that assurance as all the Members of the Committee were impressed with the necessity of this step.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): It is certainly our opinion that a periodical revision would be of great advantage. It has been of great advantage this year, and I should like to express in a few words my recognition of the efficient and prompt labours of the Select Committee and its Chairman, which enabled us to present the Bill in a much more reasonable shape than it could have been otherwise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. HOGGE: There is a great temptation to make a speech on the Third Reading of a Bill dealing with education in Scotland but I am not going to fall to that temptation this afternoon. Before we part with the Bill, I should like to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of my Scottish colleagues on this side—and I dare say it would apply to my Scottish colleagues on the other side —that a great deal of misrepresentation with regard to the teachers' attitude in Scotland has arisen as the result of the English Bill. We always had a contributory scheme of pensions in Scotland, and it was not until the English Board of Education interfered with the existing status in England that any change became necessary in Scotland. The conclusion that all of us can draw from that fact is, that if the English Education Department would cease interfering in such a way as to affect Scottish education, we should be grateful, and also that it is a strong argument in favour of Scotland being allowed to look after its own affairs, particularly this affair of education, which has been our concern for so many years, with such great success to the children of Scotland. Before the Bill goes to the other House, T think we ought to acknowledge the
fact that the Scottish teachers have approached this matter in a most reasonable frame of mind, and have been subjected to misrepresentations which are not fair, and which arose because of the interference of the English Board of Education.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 2.— (Power to refuse registration of, or remove from register, retailers of milk.)

(1) Any local authority, by whom a register of purveyors of milk is kept under or in pursuance of any enactment in that behalf, may, if they are satisfied that the public health is or is likely to be endangered by any act or default of any person who is registered or who seeks to be registered therein as a retail purveyor of milk, in relation to the quality, storage or distribution of milk, serve upon him a notice to appear before them not less than seven days after the date of the notice to show cause why the local authority should not, for reasons to be specified in the notice, refuse to register him or to remove him from the register, as the case may be, either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises, and if he fails to show cause to their satisfaction accordingly they may refuse to register him or remove him from the register, as the case may be.

Any person aggrieved by any such decision of the local authority as aforesaid may, within twenty-one days, give notice of appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and that Court may require the local authority to register such person or not to remove him from the register.

The local authority or such person as aforesaid may appeal from the decision of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the next practicable Court of Quarter Sessions, who may confirm or reverse the Order of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

The decision of a local authority to refuse registration or to remove any person from the register under this Section shall not have effect until the expiration of the time for appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction nor, where any such appeal is brought, until the appeal is determined; and where notice of appeal from a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Section is given within seven days from the date thereof, such decision of the local authority as aforesaid shall not take effect until the appeal to Quarter Session is finally determined.

Where the appeal is from a refusal to register, such person as aforesaid may, until the appeal is finally determined, carry on business as a purveyor of milk notwithstanding that he is not registered.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "as a retail purveyor of milk."
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will remember that we raised this point in Committee. Since then we have had some opportunity of going further into it, which rather justifies our action in bringing it before the House on the Report stage. My right hon. Friend said he would make some inquiries and see what could be done, and I trust that those inquiries have been made, and that he is now prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CAPE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. It would extend the scope of the Bill very much and would make it quite unacceptable. I know my hon. Friend wants the Bill to pass, and I hope, therefore, he will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Licences by Minister of Health to sell milk under special designations.)

(1) A person shall not, either by himself or by any servant or agent, except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister of Health or with his authority under the provisions of an Order made by him under this Act—
(b) on or in connection with any sale or offer for sale or proposed sale of any milk or in any advertisement, circular, or notice relating to any milk, describe or refer to the same as "certified," "Grade A," "pasteurised" or by any other designation prescribed as aforesaid, or use any other description or designation including or resembling any such description or designation.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, b), to insert the words
Provided that any Order issued by the Minister under this Act shall not exclude from the definition of pasteurisation for the purpose of this Section any apparatus or method of pasteurisation which produces milk shown upon a bacterial test to be a milk which does not endanger the public health.
My right hon. Friend will remember the Debate which took place in Committee on the subject of pasteurisation. I am particularly anxious that the people to-day who in reality possess something like 90 per cent. of the plant for pasteurisation shall not have any Order made that will compel them immediately to take away their plant, in order to substitute some plant or process which may be suitable to the Ministry under the Order issued. We want to safeguard these people, because we feel it should not so much depend on the class of machinery through which the milk has passed, but should be regarded from the bacteriological standpoint. While people engaged in this business of pasteurising milk are anxious to put on the market a milk that is clean and safe, and which will not endanger the public health, we do feel that the position in which many find themselves should be safeguarded, and the object of moving an Amendment of this description is to give to these people some opportunity to protect themselves against any Order that may be issued by the Ministry. I do hope my right hon. Friend has gone a little more fully into this question than he did on Second Reading.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: I well remember we discussed this question in Committee, and the hon. Member introduced this very Amendment. I gave an assurance that no Order would be issued until the matter had been fully investigated, and that Order would be before the House. It is impossible for me to accept an Amendment to compel directions to be given as to the form in which that Order is to be made. If my hon. Friend will rely on the assurance, that all these things will be fully gone into when the Order comes before the House, a question can be raised on that specific Order.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 8.—(Regulations by Minister of Health.)

The Minister of Health shall make Regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, for the prevention of danger arising to public health from the
importation of milk intended for sale for human consumption or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption.

Sub-section {1) of Section one of the said Act shall have effect as though at the end thereof the following paragraph were added—

(d) provide for the manner in which any tin or other receptacle containing dried, condensed, skimmed, or separated milk is to be labelled or marked.

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
and prescribe the minimum percentages of milk fat and milk solids hi dried or condensed milks.
This Amendment will enable me to make Regulations with regard to these products, as in the case of ordinary milk.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Administration of Act.)

(1) The local authority for the purpose of the enforcement of Sections three and four of this Act shall be the same as the local authority concerned with the enforcement of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, and the local authority for the enforcement of Section five of this Act shall be the sanitary authority.

Provided that where a local authority have been authorised by the Minister to grant licences under Section three of this Act, that local authority shall also be a local authority for the purpose of the enforcement of that Section.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after "1907," to insert the words
(including an authority empowered by Section thirteen of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, to give directions to the officers named therein to procure samples of food or drugs).
This Amendment is moved with the deliberate intention of getting some protection, or perhaps I should say, some powers for small localities that have to apply the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. We feel that the officers of those authorities acting under the Act should have power to make the necessary arrangements to procure samples of food or drugs likely to endanger the public health. This is for the better protection of the smaller localities.

Sir A. MOND: I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to move "That, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." Would
I be in order in moving the adjournment, of the further consideration of this Bill at this stage? If so, I would like to do so. I understood that the Minister was going to consider certain alterations which he does not appear to have done. I handed in Amendments dealing with these points but they appear to have been overlooked.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): Perhaps the hon. Member had better waive his right in present circumstances.

Mr. KILEY: If you rule that I have not the power, I naturally accept that ruling.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not rule that the hon. Member has no power, but that in the circumstances, I was not prepared to accept his proposed Motion.

CLAUSE 12.—(Provisions as to breaches of contract.)

Where the registration of a retailer is refused, or a retailer is removed from a register, under this Act, the retailer shall not be liable to any action for breach of a contract current at the date of the passing of this Act for the purchase of further supplies of milk from a producer, if he can prove that such refusal or removal was due to the quality of milk supplied by the producer.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "current at the date of the passing of this Act."

Sir A. MOND: I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Where it is certified by an analyst acting under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875–1907, that the milk tendered by a producer to a retailer under a contract, is or is likely to endanger public health, such retailer shall not be liable to any action for breach of the contract for the purchase of further supplies of milk from that producer.

Sir A. MOND: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I think my hon. Friend has done very well this afternoon.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOGGE: Would it not be well that we should now adjourn the proceedings? I do not think either the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary can
complain that those present have put any obstacle in the way of getting business done. Now we are taking a Bill which personally I have no interest in. It has been a question of manuscript Amendments from one hon. Member to the Chair, and we cannot understand what they are about. Another hon. Member actually handed in an Amendment which has not been taken and which, apparently, has been overlooked by the Clerks at the Table. In these circumstances, and as the Government know that they will get the Bill within a reasonable time, surely they will do something to avoid this confusion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. There was an understanding that certain business should be taken, but if the hon. Member had moved the Adjournment before we entered upon this stage I might have accepted it. As he did not do so, I assumed it was the general wish of the House to go on with this Measure, and after the House has decided to proceed with this Bill, I think it would be wrong to accept the hon. Member's proposal. With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland, there is a difficulty arising because his Amendment comes in at a point we have already passed.

Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): Clause 12 on the Order Paper is really a misprint for Clause 14.

Mr. KILEY: I understood an hour ago that this matter was not going to be taken.

CLAUSE 14.—(Application to Scotland.)

This Act shall apply to Scotland, with the following modifications:—
(d) Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act shall have effect as if there were inserted after the term "certified," wherever the same occurs therein, the term "Grade A (tuberculin tested).

Mr. PRATT: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words
In Sub-section (3) of Section three of this Act references to the Milk (Scotland) Order, 1921, the Local Authorities (Milk) (Scotland) Order, 1921, the Milk (Local Authorities) (Scotland) Order, 1920, and the Local Authorities (Milk) (Scotland) Order, 1920, shall be substituted for references to the Milk
(England and Wales) Order, 1921, and the Local Authorities (Milk) Order, 1921.
This Amendment simply applies the Bill to Scotland, and it is necessary in consequence of the Amendments made in the Bill in Committee upstairs.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I do not wish to press this stage of the Bill now if the House be unwilling to pass it.

Mr. HOGGE: The Amendments have been put in so quickly that I think those who are interested in the Bill ought to have a chance of seeing this Measure in its amended form.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEENS.

Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances in which the Navy and Army Canteen Board took over the assets and
liabilities of the Expeditionary Force Canteens and into the amounts, etc., taken over; and to inquire into the conduct, administration, trading accounts, and balance sheets of the Navy and Army Canteen Board since taking over from the Expeditionary Force Canteens.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Major Robert Barker, Major Hills, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Irving, Lieutenant-Colonel Pownall, Mr. Robertson, Sir Thomas Robinson, Lieutenant-Colonel John Ward, and Viscount Wolmer nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That the Committee have leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Order, were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Four of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Six o'Clock till Monday next (31st July), pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.